Law and media - a need for a better dialogue

Should the High Court provide summaries of its decisions so as to encourage more and more accurate coverage of its important cases? Would that attempt make any difference in a news media increasingly dedicated to conflict, mixing fact and opinion and pandering to the views of puffed up individuals?

The Supreme Court of the United States has resisted television cameras in the courtroom. Even when Bush v Gore was argued, the cameras stayed outside in the snow. But in 1973 the Supreme Court judges appointed a public information officer.

In his recent autobiography, the first such officer-holder has revealed his often discouraging experience. With some exceptions, journalists were as unaware as most citizens of how the apex court functioned. Most were just not interested to cover the actual work of the court. They wanted information, often trivial, on the habits of the Justices. Personality and entertainment rule.

All too often Hollywood trumps law and justice. In America, Judge Judy is the nation's highest judge. In Australia perhaps it is the League Judiciary. If you read or watch the Australian media there is probably more coverage of that judiciary than of the nation's constitutional court.

Does it matter? Yes it does. Now, the High Court is fighting back. Its decisions are on the Internet within ten minutes of delivery. They are available to all citizens who are interested. Yet, the moulders of opinion and the manipulators of power could not, it seems, care less. The decisions, big and small, mostly sink like stones - without trace.

If our concern, as judges and citizens, is with law and justice, we must make sure that information technology is more than a medium of entertainment. But can the tide be turned? Can the courts bring their important doings into the homes of the nation? Can multimedia and information technology come to the rescue of law and justice? Or is the new technology the ultimate nemesis of the judges, condemning them to the irrelevancy of trivia whilst the truly important things grab headlines and sell media space and time.

The future of democracy and the rule of law in Australia and everywhere else, depends upon the way in which law and media serve the community. If law serves only the rich and media and its technology are the new opiate of the poor, civilisation will be in danger.

But if law serves justice and if the media helps to bring law and justice to all people, civilisation will be advanced and democracy will have a chance to work as our Constitution intended. Lawyers must therefore be more committed to explaining their work to the public. The media must be more committed to communicating the law in ways that are both accurate and understandable.