April 16, 2010
New question in NLRB case: Issue over new members

I thought this article was interesting because it is very short. It is from SCOTUS Blog and it informs readers that lawyers in the National Labor Relations Board case have been asked to file new briefs on the effect of new board members.
Though the article is really short, it alerts the reader to the new development in the case. Unlike most traditional media, it only seeks to mention the development and does not make a full story of it. Instead, links to the sites where readers can read the request for the briefs, as well as pages readers can visit to find more information about the case.
In offering readers access to the sources directly, the site is able to get news across without having to write a complete story. The downside, I would imagine, is that they article lacks salience with an audience who might not have any interest in this case. Someone who reads this and knows little about it might click away from the page without bothering to open the informative links, because they have not been offered any reason to take interest in the case.

April 2, 2010
Court battle could upend President Obama's agenda
Politico

This article discusses the impact that the the Supreme Court Justice selection process could have on Obama's career/agenda. Justice Stevens has announced that he will possibly retire soon, and Obama will have to select someone to fill his seat. The article mentions that his selection will be a battle and that his nominees will affect his agenda and the upcoming elections. The article speculates that he will chose someone who will reflect well for the Democrats and also that the GOP will stir up controversy to get their base going. It talks a lot about what type of person the nominee will likely be.
The article really "kicks him while he is down". There is a strong negative tone throughout the article; in light of disappointment about his inaction and failure to take a stance on many issues, thee article suggests that this will be no different. Some quotes from the article:

“I don’t think Obama was ever anxious to have the debate be about guns, gay marriage, and partial-birth abortion, and is even less so now”

“The downside of it is I think it would be a disappointment to a lot of people who came out to vote for [Obama] in 2008, who normally don’t vote and might not in 2010 or 2012”

“It’ll be a pitched battle”

The article really establishes the fact that the stakes are high and suggests to the reader that Obama needs to make a careful choice or he could stand to lose a lot.

Supreme Court as Supreme Being

March 22, 2010

Supreme Court Again Rejects Injunction in Asian Carp Case

This article discusses the Supreme Court's decision to reject an injunction that would close Chicago-area waterways in order to curb the destruction of the Asian carp. The Supreme Court had not yet decided whether they would reopen a 90 year old case over the management of the waterways.
The article mentions the damage that the fish would cause could be significant and also that the closure of locks would be a costly blow for the local shipping industry.
The article emphasizes the power the Supreme Court has in deciding what cases it will take. While this article does not directly blame the Court for their decision to reject an injunction, it does place them in a vulnerable position in the minds of the readers. The Times' portrayal of the Court as the authority on the decision seems to suggest that if something goes wrong or bad things happen as a result of the injunction, that the Supreme Court will be responsible. The article mentions that because of this decision, Obama will be the one in charge now:
"After today's Supreme Court decision, the Obama administration will have its hand on the rudder until the Supreme Court decides whether to reopen a 90-year-old case over Illinois' management of the waterways connecting the Mississippi River Basin and the Great Lakes."
...suggesting that he, too, could potentially be at blame for the things that occur in the future.

March 30, 2010
"Supreme Court hands victory to mutual fund industry"

This Reuters article discusses the Supreme Court decision regarding mutual funds and "a 1982 standard to decide the fairness of fund fees."
The two main things I notice about this article are its inaccessibility for the common, non-banker American and the way it frames the story as "winner achieves victory".
On the first point, I had a difficult time understanding the article because I know very little about banking and mutual funds and none of the terms were defined. Many of the quotes are from people in the industry, and thus I cannot understand the value, significance, or possible bias of that person. The article does provide information (and a link) on Harris Associates, the party that was first sued in the case: "The highly-anticipated decision came in a case where three shareholders in Oakmark Funds sued the funds' adviser, Harris Associates, which decided which stocks to buy and sell. Harris is an indirect subsidiary of Natixis SA (CNAT.PA) affiliate Natixis Global Asset Management LP."
...but this same background info is not provided for the remaining companies and firms mentioned.
On the second point, the article really frames this as a victory - it even uses that word in the title. it quotes several people who are in favor of this ruling and all of the quotes discuss how stabilizing this is for the industry, how happy they are, etc. I have to wonder if I should be happy too. This article tells me that this big victory has been won and it seems like "everyone" is happy about it, at least according to them, so should I be happy too? I feel that I am left with little info on the other, losing side of the argument, and am only given the option to bask in the glory that the mutual funds have received. They could be taking all of my money, and I would have no idea because everyone seemed so happy and I have no idea what the jargon means!!

Alito's Comment

January 28, 2010:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/commentary-alito-vs-obama-whos-right/

Though this article dates back a few weeks, I thought it was a great example of new media coverage of the Supreme Court; it includes a link to a youtube video and strays from the normal layout of the more traditional media. The article discusses Supreme Court Justice Alito's shake of the head and "that's not true" comment at Obama's State of the Union address. The reaction was caught on camera, and though you can not hear his remark, his words as they are formed by his lips are very clear.
The article is divided into two sections: an analysis of the incident and a commentary about it. This structure is not typical of traditional media, and allows the readers to be more informed as to where they might watch out for the author's spin.
In the analysis section the article discusses the incident and includes a link to the video so that readers could watch for themselves. Next, it discusses the issues that "the exchange" raises about campaign finance and separation of governmental powers. I think this freedom to branch out from the issue and discuss the deeper meaning is something that traditional media cannot always offer.
In the commentary section, the article offers a critical point of view about the incident, without really taking a side. Though it raises past instances in which Alito voiced his disagreements, it states what both critics and supporters are saying.
With regards to how thoroughly this article informs the reader I will say: after reading the article I felt informed not only about the incident with Alito, but also about the campaign finance issues that Obama was reacting to. A link was provided with an example the article offered, so I felt that I could really get to know about all the issues that the article touched on. The more information the reader is provided with, especially when it comes through other sites, the more able he or she is to see the larger picture and to spot any spin or bias the article's author might have added.

The Supreme Court and a New Discrimination Case

"Discrimination Case Raises Old Issues" by Adam Liptak, The New York Times, February 22, 2010

This article discusses the current Supreme Court discrimination case. Liptak seeks to explain how two recent Supreme Court decisions have established two contradicting precedents, that will make deciding this case a difficult task. Liptak explores the two previous cases, one of which deals directly with discrimination, and the other that deals with statutes of limitations.

The article uses a lot of legal jargon and discusses the recent issues in the case. The article is clearly not written for any old audience, but instead seeks to inform those who already have an understand of the Legislative system and the underling issues involved in the case. The article frames the case as a debate between the two sides, one of which, the article implies, will be more "right."

The article does not offer a clear outline of both sides of the case, but rather discusses the alleged discrimination, what should have been done to fix the problem before it went to court, and how the Supreme Court has created a difficult situation for themselves with their past rulings.

Note: I wrote this a few weeks ago and have just posted it today.

Evidence in the Casey Anthony Murder Trial

"Casey Anthony's Defense Team Wants Some Potential Evidence Thrown Out" Fox News March 9, 2010

This article states that Casey Anthony's defense lawyers want some of the potential evidence thrown out of the case, arguing that it will only be used to make the jury view her in a negative light. Anthony is being charged with murdering her young daughter in 2008.

The article is very sensationalistic; it begins by asking, "Remember the frantic 911 call made by Casey's mom Cindy back in July 2008?" This is sensationalistic and informal and does not give me the impression that this article is reliable news (it is from Fox, so I did not expect different, but it is interesting to see an example of their style of journalism). Furthermore, I had to reread the article twice to try and absorb more facts about the case because by the end of the article I still did not feel that I had a full idea of what the case was about and what the prosecution might argue or what else the defense might be using as evidence. The article did not seem to address any of the "why"s of the case, and only made simple claims about what the defense wanted. They thought that the evidence made Anthony look like an unfit mother, promiscuous girl, etc. and the article did not suggest, or hint, or anything that the reader should see her in any other way.

The lack of a complete story made the article very biased. The phrasing of the article, as well, made it implicit that the only way to think of the defense lawyers' requests were as suspicious activity intended to protect a murderous party girl. Fox included a picture of Anthony with a black man that was apparently taken at a party. The article also referred to her by her first name. I found both things to be suspect and I think the article is painting the picture that the defense was trying to keep from influencing the jury. I think it this article is not only informal (read: unprofessional), but also clearly not "Fair and Balanced News" (Fox's slogan).