LAST Friday, at the zen-like setting of the Japanese Cultural Center of Hawaii, members of two high-profile professions that usually don't associate with one another - on warm, chatty terms, that is - sat together with polite animosity heavy in the air. Why judges, journalists don't get along
"Reporting on the Courts: A Dialog Between Judges and Journalists" was the billed headline of the Fall 1997 Judicial Conference sponsored by the Hawaii State Judiciary.
In attendance were justices, judges and attorneys, as well as print and TV reporters, editors and journalism professors. They participated in and listened to panel discussions on topics such as "Ensuring Coverage that is Fairly and Accurately Reported," and "Friend or Foe: Redefining Court-Media Relations."
Chief Justice Ronald Moon tried to put a positive spin on the gathering. Since it is one of the court's goals to be more public-friendly, opined Moon, it is a judge's civic duty to be more cooperative with the press.
The reaction of his underlings? Let's put it this way: The jurists weren't exactly nodding their heads vigorously in agreement and smiling like crazy.
In fact, if their collective thought bubbles could be heard, it would be the rhetorical question, "Why can't the media do a better job of covering trials and report the news like we judges gosh darn want them to?"
Meanwhile, members of the press were thinking just as loudly, "Why do judges make it so difficult to let the public know what the heck is going on in the courts?"
Actually, the two professions have a lot in common. They are both idealists, committed to the pursuit of truth and fairness. Their ability to reason, write and communicate is a key measure of success.
Their chosen format of investigation is the Q&A. Kindly answer the question, sir. Just the facts, ma'am.
Many of them are nosy busybodies, control freaks and borderline egomaniacs. They are guided by the premise that what they do on behalf of and for the benefit of the community is supposed to make it a better, safer, saner place to live.
Yet there are many more differences than similarities between judges and journalists, which accounts for the constant friction.
Judges are more comfortable with secrecy, not divulging data that they think could lead to mistrials or possible appeals, or which could alienate the rights of defendants, victims or even members of the jury.
They are too eager to impose gag orders, hate cameras in the courtroom and call too many bench conferences with counsel so reporters can't hear the goings-on. They are in love with legalese as opposed to layman's language.
Reporters are more comfortable with openness, conveying as much information as possible, outscooping the competition and finding that jewel of a sound-bite or quotable comment that will be the talk of the dinner table.
Editors want stories that are eloquent, explanatory, easy to understand and, most important, on deadline.
IN other words, it's an intense love/hate relationship between two professions that is desperately needed for balance in an unbalanced world. Can you imagine a judiciary dispensing justice in a vacuum, or a press with the free-wheeling right to reveal every single fact in every legal case?
Only in the respective dreams of the judge and the journalist. But for society, it would be a nightmare. Let polite animosity reign.