3 ms·

There's a huge gray area between "not understanding the law" and "being competent to litigate a case in court." It is entirely possible for non-lawyers to unde

There's a huge gray area between "not understanding the law" and "being competent to litigate a case in court." It is entirely possible for non-lawyers to understand the gist of the law at a high level. And thus it's not acceptable to tolerate misleading headlines about legal decisions any more than it is to tolerate misleading headlines about any other decision. And God knows I've seen enough of them about other issues that are within my realm of professional expertise. The problem is that our system as currently set up does not incentivize reporters working a "beat" for years where they develop enough domain expertise on a field to report on it competently. If we had actual senior legal reporters, senior national security reporters, senior tech reporters, and so on, they would have enough knowledge of those fields to effectively write for laypeople.

chefandy 2y ago
Your distinction— understanding the law, broadly, and being able to try a case in court are themselves two extremes on the spectrum of people that understand law. The invective for clickbait obviously exists. None of those facts means that it’s easy, or even possible to write a headline-length blurb can give laypeople the context they need to know what’s happening. Maybe I’m wrong? Can you propose one that does?
nightpool 2y ago
> The problem is that our system as currently set up does not incentivize reporters working a "beat" for years where they develop enough domain expertise on a field to report on it competently. If we had actual senior legal reporters, senior national security reporters, senior tech reporters, and so on, they would have enough knowledge of those fields to effectively write for laypeople. How does this apply to Techdirt? Tim Cushing has been a staff writer at techdirt for 12 years and works heavily on a legal, civil liberties/policy beat with a tech perspective. By your criteria, he should be a perfect example of journalists who have enough knowledge to effectively write for laypeople.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  I didn't say they don't exist. I said the system does not incentivize for that.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

chefandy 2y ago

Your distinction— understanding the law, broadly, and being able to try a case in court are themselves two extremes on the spectrum of people that understand law. The invective for clickbait obviously exists. None of those facts means that it’s easy, or even possible to write a headline-length blurb can give laypeople the context they need to know what’s happening. Maybe I’m wrong? Can you propose one that does?

nightpool 2y ago

> The problem is that our system as currently set up does not incentivize reporters working a "beat" for years where they develop enough domain expertise on a field to report on it competently. If we had actual senior legal reporters, senior national security reporters, senior tech reporters, and so on, they would have enough knowledge of those fields to effectively write for laypeople. How does this apply to Techdirt? Tim Cushing has been a staff writer at techdirt for 12 years and works heavily on a legal, civil liberties/policy beat with a tech perspective. By your criteria, he should be a perfect example of journalists who have enough knowledge to effectively write for laypeople.

psunavy03 2y ago
I didn't say they don't exist. I said the system does not incentivize for that.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]