Judges, Reporters Face Same Public Scrutiny

Newspaper reporters and judges must be made of the same stuff. There are many similarities in our jobs. A chief dividing factor: Judges earn a lot more money than most newsmen and women, but both jobs put in longer hours than meets the public’s eye.
For a lawyer to become a judge is much the same as a reporter becoming, say, a managing editor or something higher. The Bar Association recommends judges, and there is a lot of red tape that goes into judicial selections. None of that happens when a reporter heads upward, still there are factors that are considered by the publisher when a job advancement takes place.
Generally, and there are exceptions, many of the posts are long term, judges and top newsmen and women.
Aside from fatter paychecks and having to wear a black robe to work, consider Joe Hart’s Aug. 6 story on page one about the Cape May County judges working harder to clear the docket of cases. It’s impressive, but then, so is writing a slough of stories about taxpayers up in arms about something.
Consider, too, that judges and reporters face the same daily dilemma: Half the people about whom we write — or judge — end up hating us for it.
While reporters don’t make sources swear on the Bible to tell the truth, after many years on the job, we have gut feelings about a source telling the truth.
Judges must instruct a jury on points of law that they must decide in a case. Reporters must place facts before the public, which becomes the ultimate jury of what is presented in this or any newspaper.
Reporters have to delve into loads of material to gather background for a story. Many times, the stories we author deal with subjects about which we have limited, if any, knowledge.
When Hart wrote about cancer rates in Cape May County, he had to double-check the spelling each type of cancer. When Leslie Truluck wrote about the MUA wastewater facilities, there were technical terms with which she had to familiarize herself. When Lauren Suit wrote about the local Catholic churches, there was information she had to sort through to understand what the problems were. Jack Fichter has to ask many questions about budgets and court cases when doing stories.
So, as can be seen, the words in a story don’t jump upon a page as if by magic.
Court decisions don’t pop into a computer of their own volition. Judges have to research the law, read through cases, some a hundred of more years old.
Reading such case law is as exciting as making sense of the Webster Collegiate Dictionary or finding joy reading the Yellow Pages from Abortion Alternatives to Yoga Instruction. Still, someone has to do it, and if a life hangs in the balance, a judge has to know what must be decided.
Few people rise when a reporter enters or leaves the room, unless they are jumping out of their chair to leave the room before the reporter enters.
Judges get gavels. We reporters get keyboards and notebooks.
In many cases, reporters develop a crust like judges. To them it’s an unspoken fact: You don’t have to like us, but you do have to respect us. You may not like the facts we present, but facts are facts, and they do not tell untruths.
Any young person who considers either law or journalism as a life’s profession should consider diligently what would be required of them before entering. Before them waits endless hours of reading, often into subjects they will find boring.
To be sure, they both will meet some very interesting people, characters if you will. The grumpy curmudgeon who appears before a judge may be a terrific source of a story for a reporter.
Some of journalism’s best reporters have or had a knack for being able to talk to princes and prisoners on the same plane, and finding gems to write about them in fascinating stories.
Some of law’s best judges have a keen ability to fathom a criminal’s mind, and mete out the correct punishment that equals the crime, if such can be the case.
Judges and reporters have their hands “tied” somewhat by how they must handle stories or cases. Judges may want to put criminals to death for the acts they commit, but the law dictates something less.
Reporters may want to see a person scourged before the public for what they did, but there are libel laws that may prohibit such desires.
Few, if any, accolades will be directed to reporters or judges. We feel the heat of what we write just as a judge may feel the wrath of a family whose loved one he or she sentenced to life in prison without parole.
Why do people enter law or journalism? Each has a different reason. If a truthful answer was given, each one would likely state: It’s something I always wanted to do, and I wouldn’t change for the world. Some professions are like that. All the money in the world can’t buy a good reporter. All the money in the world can’t buy a judge. There must be a common bond, a thread that keeps us doing what we do, in a job that doesn’t stop when the clock sweeps past 12. The work never stops; there is fresh news to tell; there are new cases to hear.
As long as there are people, there will be news. As long as there are people, there will be crime. Thus there will always be a need for reporters and judges.
Bet you never thought about judges or reporters like that did you?