1. Graber say the Supreme Court justices want to stay removed from the media because the publicity about the supreme court decisions is very important, it informs the public officials at all government levels, as well as the general public, about the law of the land governing important and controversial issues. Only a small corps of reporters is responsible for singling out the decisions that will receive abundant media attention. Only some over fifty reporters cover the Supreme Court, and of those only a dozen correspondents for major wire services and newspapers are full- time. Also covering the Supreme Court isn’t the same as covering the media, it is must more difficult for reporters. The justices usually announce multiple decisions on a single day, forcing reporters to digest voluminous and often contradictory opinions rapidly. This must be done without help from the justices who wrote the opinions. The reporters’ deadlines may be only minutes away, and the news may be stale after more then twenty-four hours have elapsed. Advice from outside commentators, including legal experts, is usually unavailable initially because experts are not allowed to preview the opinions and advance leaks are rare.
2. Some difficulties with making court coverage newsworthy is that there is a shortage of skilled legal reporters, much reporting on the courts, even the Supreme Courts. The situation has improved considerably in the recent years, but it is far from cured. Many editors do not want to assign reporters with legal expertise because featuring their stories would be too technical and dull. Ill informed statements by well-known people who opposed the Court’s decisions made up the major part of the stories. The media covered the prayer decision more heavily because it presents an easy to grasp, emotionally stirring story, even though the duller reapportionment decision was far more significant.
3. Some problems with the “tabloidization” of crime news are the overemphasis of crimes involving celebrities or crimes that seem particularly heinous. The total amount of coverage is disproportionate, especially since much of it is little more than a repeated spinning out of insignificant, often irrelevant details. Coverage is also disproportionate care to other important stories that need attention. Some stories are bonanzas for media enterprises because they