As today's Tony Lewises disappear, courts fill void.

• Author: Sellers, David A.
• Position: The Art, Craft, and Future of Legal Journalism: A Tribute to Anthony Lewis

Anthony Lewis was a giant in the world of journalism. I am honored to participate in this symposium to recognize his many contributions to journalism in general, and more specifically, to the coverage of the courts.

Tony was a gifted writer, who covered one of the most challenging beats in Washington. His nine "news makers" were not generally accessible to journalists, and their work product was not easily decipherable. Yet Tony made the Supreme Court both understandable and relevant to his readers.

Regrettably, the number of journalists who cover courts today, let alone those who write with Tony's insight and clarity, is very small and rapidly declining. Any number of reports, most notably, the annual State of the News Media by the Project for Excellence in Journalism ("PEJ"), chronicles the shrinking newspaper newsroom workforce, which in 2012 was reported to be at its lowest level since 1978. (1)

And even more relevant to Tony Lewis and his old beat were the remarks Politico reporter Josh Gerstein made in a 2012 speech entitled, "Have the Media Stopped Covering Courts?" (2) "[B]asic reporting on the courts has taken a huge hit in the current economic climate," Gerstein said. He further explained:

Newspapers that used to have a reporter in every courthouse in their communities now are lucky to have a single reporter covering the dozen or so courts in their coverage zone. TV stations and networks cover a few high-profile cases, but little more. Some reporters wouldn't have any idea if they're entitled to cover jury selection or copy a court exhibit because they've never tried, or been allowed to try. (3) Even the press corps who regularly cover Tony's old beat, the highest Court in the land, have changed dramatically in nature and numbers. The full-time credentialed press corps, which once numbered forty, is now twenty-six. (4) Gone from the press room are reporters from evening papers, news magazines, and most regional papers. However, there are an equal, if not greater, number of people who parachute in to cover a single case before the High Court. And they may be bloggers, or writers for limited circulation, or special interest publications. (5)

When the Supreme Court makes news, it is often front-page news, but the Court hears only about eighty oral arguments per term. (6) The overwhelming majority of cases are resolved by the inferior courts, as they are called in Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. (7) And it is the work of these courts--the cases, the people, the trends, and most importantly, the impact--that is increasingly ignored by the news media.

In a 2010 interview published in the Maine Bar Journal, U.S. District Judge D. Brock Hornby was asked, "[W]hat is the biggest challenge the federal judiciary faces today?" (8) As a highly respected jurist who has occupied several key national leadership positions in judicial administration, (9) Judge Hornby's response was prophetic:

We are becoming invisible except for the highest profile trials.... The federal judiciary must find a way to reach out. A primary reason for what we do is deterrence and if people don't know what we do, how can there be deterrence? (10) Change comes slowly in most judicial systems, whether it relates to the law or the administrative apparatus that runs the courts. Aristotle said, "The virtue of justice consists of moderation, as regulated by wisdom." (11) While he was not referring to courts and their experiences with the changing media landscape, his observation and insights are applicable here.

Yet courts have made significant progress in their interactions with the media and the public, particularly since Tony Lewis stepped aside from his Supreme Court beat in the mid-1960s to become a foreign correspondent and columnist. (12)

These changes may seem modest to some, particularly compared to the other branches of government. Nearly every member of the United States Congress has both a Facebook page and a Twitter account, for example. (13) The White House uses Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, live-streaming, and podcasts, among other methods, for communicating with the public. (14)

Justice Felix Frankfurter reportedly said, "The public's confidence in the judiciary hinges on the public's perception of it, and that perception necessarily hinges on the media's portrayal of the legal system." (15)

And, I would add to Justice Frankfurter's observation: if not the media, who?

PEJ noted that the time is ripe for government, among others, to fill the void left by vanishing journalists. "In 2012, a continued erosion of news reporting resources converged with growing opportunities for those in politics, government agencies, companies, and others to take their messages directly to the public," PEJ stated in its State of the News Media report. (16)

If the media is no longer able to report on the courts, what steps can courts take to more effectively communicate with the media and the public at large? In fact, courts can and have been doing quite a bit. That is the focus of this Article.

In particular, there are four areas that merit specific consideration: 1) Court Public Information Officers; 2) Electronic Access to Court Records; 3) Court Websites; and 4) Video and Social Media Access. I will focus on the federal court experience in these areas. The National Center for State Courts (17) is an excellent reference tool for information about state court activities and programs.

1. COURT PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS

   It is significant to note that an increasing number of courts have institutionalized the position of Public Information Officer ("PIO"). This is no longer a function a court can ignore, nor is it a responsibility that is assigned to an untrained, junior employee. Any discussion of court PIOs must begin with yet another Toni--Toni House--a name that may not be as familiar as Tony Lewis, but a name that is identified with the nation-wide birth and growth in the function and role of court PIOs. (18)

   Toni House was the Supreme Court Public Information Officer from 1982 to 1998, when she died--much too early--at the age of fifty-five. (19) The two Toni(y)s did not work at the Court during the same years, but it's very likely that they knew each other. They occupied very similar roles, albeit from different sides of the fence. Both were trailblazers in their field--concerned with the accurate portrayal of the high Court, as well as improving public understanding of the Court and its work.

   Toni House was not the Court's first PIO, but she was the first one who took an interest and leadership role in developing the profession of court PIOs. In 1992, she provided the vision, and the National Center for State Courts and well-known legal publisher Dwight Opperman (20) provided the organization and resources, to convene the first-ever meeting of court public information officers. (21)

   "Sitting where I do, I have long seen the need for the development of a corps of professional judicial public information providers--on both the state and federal level--who could serve ... as a buffer between the courts and the media," House said in a 1992 note. "An annual national conference is a step in that direction (and one, I admit, for which I have agitated over the last four or five years.)" (22)

   There were only a handful of states and federal courts that had court PIOs at the time. (23) However, the development of a listserv in 1996 for court PIOs to share ideas and challenges, and the continuation of annual meetings, gave birth four years later to the Conference of Court Public Information Officers ("CCPIO"). (24)

   Today, a majority of state courts and the District of Columbia have at least one PIO. (25) In fact, Florida has twenty-six court public information offices encompassing each of the twenty circuit (or general trial) courts, five district (or lower appellate) courts, and the Supreme Court. (26) CCPIO continues to meet annually and its listserv has 135 subscribers, including court PIOs in state and federal courts, as well as members from the Philippines, Scotland, Trinidad and Tobago, and Guam. (27)

   The PIOs are at the center of what Judge Hornby called court efforts to "reach out." (28) While some judges may have ethical restrictions or simply possess a level of discomfort in interacting with the news media, this responsibility is a key component of virtually every court PIOs' job description.

   PIOs are professionals, many with backgrounds in journalism or law or both. For example, Toni House of the Supreme Court was a long-time Washington Star reporter. (29) Joe Tybor, Press Secretary to the Supreme Court of Illinois, was a reporter for the Chicago Tribune for seventeen years, including nine covering law and the courts. Laura Kieman, who recently retired as Director of Communications of the New Hampshire Judicial Branch, was a long-time Washington Post reporter, who also covered courts. (30) Jane Hansen, the PIO for the Georgia Supreme Court, was a reporter, columnist, and member of the editorial board for the Atlanta Constitution. (31) Osier McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information at the Supreme Court of Texas, is a Gonzaga Law School graduate and a journalism professor at the University of Texas. (32) Marcia McBrien, PIO for the Michigan Supreme Court, is a University of Michigan Law School graduate. (33) Leah Gurowtiz, Director of Legislative, Intergovernmental and Public Affairs for the D.C. Courts, is a Vanderbilt Law School graduate. (34)

   Court PIOs perform a wide variety of duties. They manage content on court websites, develop and execute educational outreach programs and events, conduct courthouse tours, produce annual reports and newsletters, and serve as their court's liaison with the news media. (35) They all share the common goal of making the courts more understandable to the public and the media, and their role has become increasingly important in this era of shrinking resources in the...