Peter Vaira of Weir Greenblatt Pierce. Courtesy photo

Eastern District

This column examines the media reporting of federal and state court decisions for accuracy and quality. Any examination of this area must take into consideration the background of the intense political atmosphere which colors much of the news today. For example, news reports of decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court usually contain a discussion of the votes of the conservative and liberal members of the court, implying the court decision goes along political lines.

There has been much criticism of the media by current and former judges. U.S. District Court Judge Gene Pratter for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said, in response to an inquiry by the writer of this column, "It is widely reported that the highly polarized political environment in the country, as well as the media accounts about key U.S. Supreme Court cases, have combined to dramatically impact the way Americans view all levels of the judicial system." Pratter further explained, "Reporting about "high profile" cases dealing with the most difficult and divisive issues draw almost all the attention of the media and the public, and there's little or attenuation to the bulk of the cases that courts decide every day."

A recent panel of three federal judges voiced concern with the public perception of the courts caused by the current style of reporting of court decisions. In a panel of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Judicial Conference in Philadelphia, Senior Judge Thomas Hogan of the District of Court of the District of Columbia, said "present reporting of divisive cases increasingly suggest partisan influence is behind the decision judges make." He said reporters still refer to him as a Reagan appointee which occurred 30 years ago.