Critical coverage: How the media criticize supreme courts—Evidence from Israel

• Published date: 01 January 2021
• Author: Bryna Bogoch,Yifat Holzman‐Gazit
• Date: 01 January 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12160

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Critical coverage: How the media criticize supreme

courts—Evidence from Israel

Bryna Bogoch

1

| Yifat Holzman-Gazit

2

1

Department of Interdisciplinary Social

Science Studies and School of Communication,

Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

2

The Haim Striks School of Law, College of

Management Academic Studies, Rishon

LeZion, Israel

Correspondence

Bryna Bogoch, Department of

Interdisciplinary Social Science Studies and

School of Communication, Bar-Ilan

University, Ramat Gan, Israel.

Email: bryna.bogoch@biu.ac.il

Funding information

Bar-Ilan University

Abstract

This paper examines media criticism of the Israeli

Supreme Court from 2002 to 2011 in two newspapers.

We analyze the nature and patterns of press criticism in

different contexts by 1) distinguishing between diffuse

and specific criticism and 2) by analyzing criticism sep-

arately from political framing and the tone of the arti-

cle. We find that the increase in diffuse criticism and

political framing over time was often balanced with

counter-criticism, resulting in a neutral or even positive

tone toward the Court. This complex picture enables a

more sophisticated understanding of the nature and

implications of criticism of supreme courts in the press.

1|INTRODUCTION

Journalists who cover supreme courts face particular challenges (Barnes et al., 2016). Aside from

the lack of scoops, interviews, and press conferences that characterize ordinary political reporting,

there is an absence of consensus about whether the type of skepticism and criticism typical of the

coverage of the political sphere is legitimate in court coverage in general and supreme court cov-

erage in particular. While criticism is considered a central component of the work of the press,

without which journalism “would be a tool in the service of the political establishment or corpo-

rate wealth”(Neiger et al., 2010, p. 377), criticism of supreme courts has a more tenuous status.

Legal scholars have written about the dangers to democracy posed by increasingly critical, con-

frontational, and negative coverage of the judicial system and have blamed media cynicism for

the decline in public support and perceived legitimacy of supreme courts (e.g., Fatima, 2017;

Gies, 2008; Jones, 2018; Pollack, 2018; Schulz, 2010). Nonetheless, the importance of a critical

press is underlined in professional codes of ethics that require journalists to “be vigilant and cou-

rageous about holding those with power accountable”(http://www.spj.org/ethicsco de.asp), even

as they (ideally) seek to provide balanced and unbiased news (Ward,2006, p. 4).

Sociolegal scholars who have investigated the relationship between media coverage and the

public legitimacy of supreme courts have distinguished between two types of support. Specific

support, which relates to public approval of particular decisions or specific judges, is considered

DOI: 10.1111/lapo.12160

©2021 University of Denver/Colorado Seminary and Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Law & Policy. 2021;43:51–72. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/lapo 51

short term and volatile, whereas diffuse support is more stable, as it captures public attitudes to

the institution of the supreme court and its role in a given political system (Dotan et al., 2015;

Driscoll & Nelson, 2018; Gibson et al., 1998).

1

We suggest that just as there are different types

of public support for the court, there are also different types of press criticism. Drawing on

insights from studies of critical journalism and media depictions of supreme courts, we analyze

press criticism of Israel’s Supreme Court by differentiating between criticism directed at a spe-

cific decision, justice, or candidate and criticism “attacking”the Court on matters of policy,

such as its use of judicial review, or institutional attributes, such as its independence and effi-

ciency. This distinction between specific and diffuse criticism provides the basis for our case

study examining types of press criticism that target the Israeli Supreme Court and can serve as

a model for similar studies elsewhere.

Our research contributes to media–court research in three ways. First, unlike previous

research on the media coverage of supreme courts, this study treats journalistic criticism as a

central practice of coverage that calls for a systematic analysis. Second, by systematically study-

ing media criticism, we develop a more finely tuned notion of critical coverage of supreme

courts than has previously been presented. Finally, our study expands the largely US-focused

body of research and offers insights that are relevant for analyzing press criticism of courts in

non-American jurisdictions as well.

2|MEDIA FRAMING AND PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR SUPREME

COURTS

It is well established in sociolegal scholarship that much of what people know, or think they

know, about supreme courts comes from the media (Collins & Cooper, 2015; Gies, 2008;

Moran, 2014). The media are said to shape public attitudes by prescribing which supreme court

rulings are important and which are not, and by the substance and tone of the coverage

(Salamone, 2018; Strother, 2017; Zilis, 2015).

Many of these studies have suggested that the US Supreme Court continues to enjoy greater

support than the other branches of government because of the way it is framed in media cover-

age (Gibson & Caldeira, 2011; Solberg & Waltenburg, 2014). In marked contrast to the partisan

and conflict-ridden coverage of politicians, Supreme Court stories are said to be characterized

by a legalistic frame that emphasizes objectivity, neutrality, and legal procedures and symbols

(Hansford et al., 2018; Sen, 2017). This legalistic frame of media coverage provides a basis for

the stable diffuse support of the Court as an institution despite fluctuations in specific support.

However, other studies have indicated that coverage of the US Supreme Court is

increasingly becoming similar to that of other political institutions, and that the Court has

lately been portrayed as a partisan and political institution (Andersen-Jones, 2014; Hitt &

Searles, 2018; Johnson & Socker, 2012; Salamone, 2018). This trend toward a more political

framing is often attributed to the increased activism of the US Supreme Court and to the

rise in media coverage of judicial nominations and confirmations, which have become

adversarial and conflictual processes in which assessment along ideological lines predomi-

nates (Dickinson, 2017; Evans & Pearson-Merkowitz, 2012; Johnston & Bartels, 2010).

Thus, political framing is found in recurring references to the personal ideologies of candi-

dates to the US Supreme Court (Sen, 2017), in reports about the activism of the Court in

reviewing legislation, and in descriptions of behind the scenes bargaining among the justices

and vis-à-vis other political actors (Hitt & Searles, 2018; Solberg & Waltenburg, 2014). This

political framing has been associated with a decline in public support for the Court

(e.g., Andersen-Jones, 2014; Hitt & Searles, 2018; LaRowe & Hoekstra, 2014; Rogowski &

Stone, 2019).

52 CRITICAL COVERAGE