I was reminded yesterday that our tendency to ascribe credibility to those people who have jobs that allow them to have their writing published in traditional media is often misplaced.  This is easiest to see when there’s a story where you’re either involved or have first-hand knowledge, and contrast that with what appears on the written page. 

Yesterday, a short piece came out in the  New York Law Journal about Stern v. Bluestone, which I posted about here.  A call came in from the writer, Noeleen G. Walder, last Friday asking me about the decision.  Now there are two ways to look at this case (and most cases), one from the layperson’s perspective and another from the lawyer’s perspective.  Noeleen was not a lawyer. 

Edit: I’m now told that Noeleen is indeed a lawyer and that I should have exercised due diligence to learn all about her before rushing to conclusions based upon our conversation.  Unfortunately, my discussion with her gave no indication that further pursuit of Noeleen’s background was worthwhile.  But armed with this newfound information from some gutless anonymous wonder, I’m constrained to note that it was easier to understand why she didn’t get it when I was under the impression that she wasn’t a lawyer.  It’s far more difficult knowing that she is.

It was clear from the outset that she didn’t get the point of the decision.  That’s not surprising, since there was a primary and a secondary issue, and the primary issue was much harder to grasp than the secondary.  So I explained it to her, together with the implications of the decision with regard to the 1st Amendment rights of lawyers.  She didn’t get it.  I then applied it to something concrete and familiar to her, writing for the New York Law Journal.  She still didn’t get it.

As lawyers, we read these stories in the newspapers of record for lawyers with the implicit understanding that the stories that appear provide us with reasonably accurate information.  We can’t read every decision, and expect a paper dedicated to legal professionals to provide us with trustworthy accounts.

In most instances, the non-lawyer writers for the New York Law Journal are capable of understanding the point of a decision and why it matters for others.  That’s their job.  But Noeleen was over her head on this one, and even with my explanation was totally incapable of getting it.  In part, this was because she really didn’t care.  Her job was to write about it, not understand it.  As long as she posted a story, she earned her paycheck.  She doesn’t get paid more for getting it right.  This, for better or worse, is the professional legal journalist.

Compare another person writing for American Lawyer Media (ALM), the same company that owns the New York Law Journal. Carolyn Elefant blogs for Law.com, ALMs blogging arm.  Unlike Noeleen, Carolyn is not only a lawyer, but an exceptionally astute attorney whose efforts are directed toward insight rather than word count.  But then, Carolyn’s not a “legal journalist,” but a lawyer.

Carolyn wrote about  the same case yesterday, but you wouldn’t recognize it from the content.  Rather than a simplistic view of the decision from the most superficial perspective, Carolyn understood the significant issues and the implications of the decision.  Noeleen may be a professional journalist, but Carolyn “got it.”

The blawgosphere is often criticized and ridiculed by the pros who argue that its unreliable, hyperbolic and undisciplined.  But the flip side is that blawgers, like Carolyn, know their stuff.  Pros like Noeleen just write words for money.  It strikes me that the citizen journalist brings a lot to the table that the professional doesn’t, and can’t.

As for American Lawyer Media, and the New York Law Journal, perhaps they need to pay a lot more attention to what their lawyers have to say about things and have their professional journalists learn a bit more about the subject matter before they let them put word to paper.  And if the pros want to puff their credibility, then they need to put a lot more effort into understanding what they are doing, rather than just pretending they have a clue.