When I first began to write for Slate, the online magazine founded in 1996, I used to be distinctly bitter that all the other journalists had several hours (and the luxury of a convivial lunch together beforehand) before filing their stories. I, on the other hand, had to leap into cabs, bound up staircases, and file within four hours, because in the world of Internet news, tomorrow morning was simply way too late. The Internet has utterly collapsed the notion of a "news cycle," and stories run as they happen. The change in the intervening years at the Court has been rather remarkable. Not only do bloggers now post their accounts of oral argument within two to three hours of leaving the courtroom, but even the traditional print journalists now scramble to post online editions of their stories that same afternoon.
As the time frame for producing news has shortened, the community of online "reporters" has expanded. Whereas Americans once had to rely exclusively on the print, radio, and TV "experts" for an account of the day's events, the Web has made it possible for visiting law students, lawyers, and even the parties to the dispute to post their impressions of oral argument almost instantaneously. With the help of some insanely dedicated bloggers-such as Howard Bashman at How Appealing and the crack team of Court watchers at Scotusblog-links to the most obscure accounts of oral argument are made available to thousands of readers within hours of the Court coming to order.
It's actually an incredibly cool phenomenon. Having the latest decision on an issue relevant to your case dissected by some of the best legal minds in the country within hours of it being handed down - a lawyer's paradise.
No comments:
Post a Comment