Miami criminal defense lawyer Brian Tannebaum, miffed at watching former Westchester County District Attorney and current TV small claims arbitrator Jeanine Pirro on his tube opining on the Michael Jackson child custody issue, a subject as close to Pirro’s competencies as finding a husband who isn’t a criminal, asks the age-old question, why?
Before delving into Brian’s deep and thoughtful angst-ridden inquiry, I must give credit to Pirro for her ability to piss people off at the bottom end of the eastern seaboard, even though her third-rate attempt at playing Judge Judy on an off-brand network has a viewership of thirty-seven, most of whom are seated in the common room at Westchester County jail. She might have a future in politics if she replaces Bernie Kerik as her campaign strategist.
Lest anyone think I’m taking a gratuitous cheap shot at Pirro in the course of discussing a greater issue, let me state for the record how much I admire her effort at rehabilitating herself and pushing her way into a position of prominence. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she winds up with her own talk show, modeling Jerry Springer perhaps. She is an inspiration for all of us.
Back to Brian now. His beef is the medias irrational love of the “former prosecutor,” and even more particularly, “former federal prosecutor,” as if the cache of this title, bestowed upon tens of thousands of young people who march in and out of the United States Attorneys offices, as well as local District Attorneys offices, annually, elevates them to hyper-credibility when it comes to 30 seconds of opinion on subjects wholly unrelated to any legal work they’ve ever performed.
A commenter, John Freeman, to Brian’s calm and deliberative discussion reprises the question of what makes a “former prosecutor” so special.
The error of these notions have been discussed before, both in terms of the prosecutor’s coming of age when he learns that a defense lawyer isn’t a prosecutor forced to earn a living, as well as the propriety of perpetuating the deception of the public in believing that former prosecutors possess some insider sway over their former office. That Freeman fights for his right to convince the public that experience as a prosecutor gives him credibility and insight that, say, a criminal defense lawyer who has fought well and successfully for defendants could never match shows where he places himself on the spectrum of internal and external integrity. If he wants to believe this makes him special, whatever. That he contends it’s his right to mislead the public, not so much.
But Brian’s problem is less with the individuals who work overtime perpetuating the myth than the media, which ought to know better.
I too have had this discussion with some media friends, explaining in small words why “former federal prosecutor” beneath the talking head is not merely meaningless, but counterproductive to their mission of providing accurate information. They scoff at me. Hah!
As my media friends explain to me, using words of equal length to mine, I am so naive. The criteria for who is used as a talking head on air is: First, unconditional availability at the drop of a hat. Second, a means to create instant credibility to the largest mass of audience possible. Third . . .there is no third. That’s it.
Here’s how it flows. If they can nab someone who is a household name and still willing to show at a moments notice, great. If they can corral a law professor (even though she’s never seen the inside of a courthouse), who by public definition is both scholarly and neutral, fine. And if neither of the foregoing is available, they shoot for “former federal prosecutor,” or lose the “federal” if they’re having a really bad booking day.
The appeal is obvious: They had a title that strikes an immediate reaction of credibility in the unknowing public. It’s not that they are trying to promote the genre, but that they aren’t willing to waste their time fighting it either. The public is impressed by titles. The public attributes virtue to titles. Since most people aren’t governmental officials in any respect, and since we’ve elevated governmental officials to minor iconic status, they’ve got something that defense lawyer do not, even if only in the past tense.
From the media point of view, don’t blame them that they are pandering to the public. They’ve got sudsy bubbles to sell. If a former prosecutor plays better in Peoria, so be it. Not their job to inform and educate the public, right?
Understanding how the news works, reporters need someone with adequate credentials to fill the hole in their piece requiring an “insight” to flesh out their story. Good reporters want someone both credible and with real insight. Other reporters aren’t as picky, seeking only a warm body to nod in agreement with their preconceived question. When the warm body comes with a built-in title that plays to the public’s mistaken perception of what constitutes credible, their job is easier, their mission fulfilled.
But before one blames the media, or former prosecutors, for playing to the prejudice and ignorance of the crowd, consider this. Lawyers, on the whole, have paved the way for this problem, by willingly offering themselves as free lunch meat in the media sandwich to get some cheap publicity. How many have declined to go on air when they know nothing about a case or a subject? How many have told their patron journalist that their question is misguided, replete with false and/or simplistic assumptions?
This doesn’t excuse the perpetration of a fraud on the public, but explains how so many have a hand in contributing to it. And if you think it’s sad that some reporter or producer thought it worthy to ask for Jeanine Pirro’s views on child custody, bear in mind that it could have been Starr Jones.
Before delving into Brian’s deep and thoughtful angst-ridden inquiry, I must give credit to Pirro for her ability to piss people off at the bottom end of the eastern seaboard, even though her third-rate attempt at playing Judge Judy on an off-brand network has a viewership of thirty-seven, most of whom are seated in the common room at Westchester County jail. She might have a future in politics if she replaces Bernie Kerik as her campaign strategist.
Lest anyone think I’m taking a gratuitous cheap shot at Pirro in the course of discussing a greater issue, let me state for the record how much I admire her effort at rehabilitating herself and pushing her way into a position of prominence. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she winds up with her own talk show, modeling Jerry Springer perhaps. She is an inspiration for all of us.
Back to Brian now. His beef is the medias irrational love of the “former prosecutor,” and even more particularly, “former federal prosecutor,” as if the cache of this title, bestowed upon tens of thousands of young people who march in and out of the United States Attorneys offices, as well as local District Attorneys offices, annually, elevates them to hyper-credibility when it comes to 30 seconds of opinion on subjects wholly unrelated to any legal work they’ve ever performed.
A commenter, John Freeman, to Brian’s calm and deliberative discussion reprises the question of what makes a “former prosecutor” so special.
The fact of the matter is that my experiences as an AUSA (and ADA in NYC) gives me credibility and insight when I recommend a course of action to fight off the government’s next move.In case you didn’t click on Freeman’s name, his criminal defense lawyer website uses the URL formerfedlawyer.com. Think he’s impressed with his credentials as a former prosecutor? Many are. Moreover, many former prosecutors, who have since been weened from the public teat, see their former lives as being their primary attribute as a defense lawyer. Certainly, it couldn’t be their competency at cross-examination, an art rarely developed in the prosecutor’s office. And not their experience devising a stratagem on behalf of defendants, never having had the need or opportunity to do so. But they believe that their inside knowledge of the workings of their former office gives them a marketable insight.
This is an asset I proudly bring to my clients’ cases every day.
The error of these notions have been discussed before, both in terms of the prosecutor’s coming of age when he learns that a defense lawyer isn’t a prosecutor forced to earn a living, as well as the propriety of perpetuating the deception of the public in believing that former prosecutors possess some insider sway over their former office. That Freeman fights for his right to convince the public that experience as a prosecutor gives him credibility and insight that, say, a criminal defense lawyer who has fought well and successfully for defendants could never match shows where he places himself on the spectrum of internal and external integrity. If he wants to believe this makes him special, whatever. That he contends it’s his right to mislead the public, not so much.
But Brian’s problem is less with the individuals who work overtime perpetuating the myth than the media, which ought to know better.
I too have had this discussion with some media friends, explaining in small words why “former federal prosecutor” beneath the talking head is not merely meaningless, but counterproductive to their mission of providing accurate information. They scoff at me. Hah!
As my media friends explain to me, using words of equal length to mine, I am so naive. The criteria for who is used as a talking head on air is: First, unconditional availability at the drop of a hat. Second, a means to create instant credibility to the largest mass of audience possible. Third . . .there is no third. That’s it.
Here’s how it flows. If they can nab someone who is a household name and still willing to show at a moments notice, great. If they can corral a law professor (even though she’s never seen the inside of a courthouse), who by public definition is both scholarly and neutral, fine. And if neither of the foregoing is available, they shoot for “former federal prosecutor,” or lose the “federal” if they’re having a really bad booking day.
The appeal is obvious: They had a title that strikes an immediate reaction of credibility in the unknowing public. It’s not that they are trying to promote the genre, but that they aren’t willing to waste their time fighting it either. The public is impressed by titles. The public attributes virtue to titles. Since most people aren’t governmental officials in any respect, and since we’ve elevated governmental officials to minor iconic status, they’ve got something that defense lawyer do not, even if only in the past tense.
From the media point of view, don’t blame them that they are pandering to the public. They’ve got sudsy bubbles to sell. If a former prosecutor plays better in Peoria, so be it. Not their job to inform and educate the public, right?
Understanding how the news works, reporters need someone with adequate credentials to fill the hole in their piece requiring an “insight” to flesh out their story. Good reporters want someone both credible and with real insight. Other reporters aren’t as picky, seeking only a warm body to nod in agreement with their preconceived question. When the warm body comes with a built-in title that plays to the public’s mistaken perception of what constitutes credible, their job is easier, their mission fulfilled.
But before one blames the media, or former prosecutors, for playing to the prejudice and ignorance of the crowd, consider this. Lawyers, on the whole, have paved the way for this problem, by willingly offering themselves as free lunch meat in the media sandwich to get some cheap publicity. How many have declined to go on air when they know nothing about a case or a subject? How many have told their patron journalist that their question is misguided, replete with false and/or simplistic assumptions?
This doesn’t excuse the perpetration of a fraud on the public, but explains how so many have a hand in contributing to it. And if you think it’s sad that some reporter or producer thought it worthy to ask for Jeanine Pirro’s views on child custody, bear in mind that it could have been Starr Jones.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yeah, and how do we counter the accepted notion that it is a prerequisite to have been a prosecutor to become a “neutral and detached” judge?
I’m not touching this one, but for a purely selfish reason. My experience is that CDLs make either the best or worst judges. For some, they go totally bonkers with power and become the meanest, nastiest scumbags to ever don a robe. That said, I think to myself, the only thing worse than a prosecutor turned judge is a defense lawyer turned judge. Others may have different experiences, so maybe they will have a different view.
I’m a former federal prosecutor and I disagree. Because, uh . . . well, I got nothing. But I am a former federal prosecutor. Did I say that?
Somebody made a major screw-up when they prepared the cool-aid for you. I think this calls for an investigation. Yeah, that’s it. An investigation. That’s the ticket.