scholarly journals Mass Media Reporting of Canadian Supreme Court Decisions: Mapping the Terrain

2000 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
David Taras
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Research Report ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Media Reporting ◽  
Depth Study ◽  
The Media ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions ◽  
Vantage Points

Abstract: This research report describes a three-year study that is being undertaken by an interdisciplinary team of researchers from across Canada on media coverage of Supreme Court decisions. The report describes the changing role of the Supreme Court in Canadian public life and the role of the media as both a vehicle for publicizing decisions and as a check on the Court's power. The study will explore media reporting from a number of vantage points-direct observation at the Court and in newsrooms, interviews, an in-depth study of how a number of important cases were reported, and an analysis of a year in the life of the Court. Workshops with members of the legal and journalistic communities and with citizens are also a crucial element in the study. Résumé: Ce rapport de recherche décrit une étude de trois ans sur la couverture médiatique de décisions prises par la Cour suprême. Une équipe interdisciplinaire de chercheurs d'une part à l'autre du Canada a mené cette étude. Ce rapport décrit le rôle changeant de la Cour suprême dans la vie publique canadienne et le rôle des médias dans la diffusion des décisions de la Cour et la capacité des médias de restreindre les pouvoirs de celle-ci. Cette étude a recours à plusieurs approches différentes pour explorer la couverture médiatique: l'observation directe de la Cour même et de salles de rédaction d'informations; des entrevues; une étude en profondeur de la maniére dont plusieurs cas furent couverts; et l'analyse d'un an dans la vie de la Cour. En outre, des ateliers avec des membres des communautés juridiques et journalistiques et avec des citoyens sont des éléments cruciaux de l'étude.

scholarly journals Connecting Supreme Court Decisions, Media Coverage, and Public Opinion: The Case of Lawrence v. Texas

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 209-230
Author(s):  
Mahalley D. Allen ◽  
Donald P. Haider-Markel
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Gay And Lesbian ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Media ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions ◽  
The Relationship

Many scholars have examined the relationship between public opinion and the U.S. Supreme Court, but most researchers have often failed to take into account the fact that the press mediates this relationship. Due to the public’s lack of independent knowledge about Supreme Court decisions, the media has the potential to play an influential role in the communication and interpretation of Supreme Court decisions. In this article, we examine the relationship between the Supreme Court, the media, and public opinion. First, we examine whether increased public tolerance on gay and lesbian issues has resulted in increased media coverage of gay-related cases before the Supreme Court. Second, we examine how media coverage of the Court’s 2003 decision to strike down state sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas may have been associated with decreased public support for gay and lesbian civil rights. Our analysis suggests that increased support for gay and lesbian civil rights may have lead to increased media attention to the Lawrence case and that the tone of this coverage may have subsequently resulted in an observed decrease in support for gay and lesbian civil rights following the Court’s decision. We also suggest that the release of a highly critical dissenting opinion by the Court in the case may have encouraged negative media coverage and the resulting shift in public opinion. Our research has broad implications for media coverage of Supreme Court decisions.

Understanding Variations in Media Coverage of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 64-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald P. Haider-Markel ◽  
Mahalley D. Allen ◽  
Morgen Johansen
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions

Covid-19, Media Reporting, and the Role of Bioethicists

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (Special Issue) ◽  
pp. 137-138
Author(s):  
Federico Nicoli ◽  
◽  
Paul J. Cummins ◽  
Joseph A. Raho ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
News Media ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
The Other ◽  
Scientific Uncertainty ◽  
Media Reporting ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Media ◽  
The U.S

"In the aftermath of the 2014 Ebola outbreak, media coverage was scrutinized for sensationalism, weakness in explaining scientific uncertainty, dehumanization of patients, and lack of contextualization. The current COVID-19 crisis presents an opportunity to assess whether the media learned its lesson. Results are mixed. Early reporting on the origin of COVID-19 in “wet markets” indicates that the media continues to do poorly with contextualization. On the other hand, stories on mortality and the infectiousness of COVID-19 indicate there has been improvement. The situation remains fluid as COVID-19 threatens to transform into a pandemic at the time of submission. Data from new countries may alter the reported rates of lethality and infectiousness, and media reporting on these changes may or may not be responsible. The explosion of social media, as a medium to promote reporting, could provide bioethicists a tool to direct the public to reliable stories and criticize inaccurate ones. Using a bioethics perspective, this poster will critically evaluate the quality of U.S. and Italian news media’s reporting on the evolving scientific understanding of COVID-19 and its contextualization. The presentation will employ QR technology to provide links to media coverage of COVID-19 from the U.S. and Italian news media. After critically appraising the quality of COVID-19 reporting, this poster will consider if bioethicists: 1) should provide comment to the media on pandemics; 2) should correct reporting for the public and 3) have a duty to publicly criticize sensationalism in the media. "

The Complexity of Sabbatino

1964 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 935-951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Falk
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Partial Analysis ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions

Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino is a seminal decision, interpreting significantly the role of a domestic court in an international law case. At the same time, it avoids reaching definitive results. Very little is settled once and for all by the Supreme Court. This realization prompts caution. Sabbatino will not yield an authoritative interpretation, except, perhaps, as a consequence of subsequent Supreme Court decisions. A commentator must be content, therefore, with the less dramatic claims of provisional and partial analysis. Those that claim more are misleading us. The complexity of Sabbatino is almost certain to poison hordes of over-clarifiers who are descending upon this major judicial decision as vultures upon a freshly dead carcass.

Roles of Social Scientists in Crisis Media Reporting: The Case of the German Populist Radical Right Movement PEGIDA

2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 415-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Birte Fähnrich ◽  
Corinna Lüthje
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Empirical Study ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Radical Right ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Media Reporting ◽  
Populist Radical Right ◽  
The Media ◽  
German Newspapers

This article examines the visibility of social scientists in the context of crisis media reporting by using the example of the German populist radical right movement PEGIDA. Based on previous research, a role typology was developed to serve as a framework for the empirical study. A content analysis of German newspapers demonstrates that social scientists are quite visible in the media coverage of PEGIDA and are presented mainly in the role of intellectuals. At the same time, new roles for social scientists are also discernible. Based on these findings, an extended role typology was developed to provide points of reference for further research.

Opportunity and Overrides: The Effect of Institutional Public Support on Congressional Overrides of Supreme Court Decisions

2017 ◽  
Vol 70 (3) ◽  
pp. 632-643 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Nelson ◽  
Alicia Uribe-McGuire
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Legislative Action ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Congressional Overrides

Existing theories of legislative-judicial relations emphasize the role of public support for the judiciary on the likelihood of legislative compliance. Although Congress can strengthen or weaken the Supreme Court’s decisions after initial compliance, the role of public support for the judiciary on subsequent legislative action is unclear. We develop a theory of legislative-judicial interactions, which suggests that Congress considers the court’s current level of public support when determining whether to override a Supreme Court decision. We test our theory using data on congressional overrides of US Supreme Court decisions, finding that high levels of public support for the court shield the court from hostile congressional action. The results underscore the vital role played by the public in interbranch relations, suggesting that public support plays a role in the legacy of a judicial decision beyond ensuring initial compliance.

Remarks by Shayak Sarkar

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 169-170
Author(s):  
Shayak Sarkar
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions

Lucas Roorda's analysis of the realities and prospects of European liability for corporate defendants is particularly timely in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum1 and Jesner v. Arab Bank2 limiting foreign direct liability (FDL) in American courts. I make three brief points in response to Lucas's thoughtful contribution: the importance of empirical research on the relevance and role of European fora; consideration of litigation as part of a broader strategy by accountability-seeking plaintiffs; and the distinction between intentional and negligence-based torts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document