The Empire Strikes Back: Press Judges and Communication Advisers in Dutch Courts

Abstract

Judges in many jurisdictions are today prepared to utilize the media to promote a better public understanding of their role. Understandably, they wish not to be perceived as ‘spin doctors’ intent on a cynical manipulation of public opinion. Judges' professional reputation, their public image, and public confidence in their role hinge on a belief in their neutrality and impartiality. Court communicators are also aware that their success in the media arena depends on a degree of skill and strategizing to ensure that the integrity and complexity of their message are preserved in media reports. This paper discusses how press judges (judges who also act as media spokesperson) and communication advisers in Dutch courts address this. It is argued that the media liaison function embraced by Dutch courts may be an expansion of law's empire or, at least, a possible attempt by law's empire to strike back against the pressures of an increasingly inquisitive media.

Mutual Bonds: Media Frames and the Israeli High Court of Justice

“…Despite the global trend to judicial activism (e.g., Tate and Vallinder 1995; Hirschl 2004) and the acknowledged role of the media in shaping public awareness and attitudes to supreme courts (Gibson, Caldeira, and Baird 1998), very little empirical research has been conducted on the media coverage of supreme courts outside the United States and Canada (Gies 2005). 2 This study of the patterns of press coverage of Israel's High Court of Justice (HCJ) not only presents a case study that is interesting in its own right, but it also provides a unique vantage point for the study and analysis of the nature of the relationship between supreme courts and the mass media.…”

“…Because the media shapes the public agenda and constructs the legitimacy of substantive issues and institutions through the frames it uses (e.g., Gamson et al 1992;Van Dijk 1995;Avraham 2003;Entman 2004), public knowledge, awareness, and respect for judicial institutions are associated with the scope and nature of media coverage (Grey 1968;Caldeira 1986;Jamieson 1998). 1 Despite the global trend to judicial activism (e.g., Tate and Vallinder 1995;Hirschl 2004) and the acknowledged role of the media in shaping public awareness and attitudes to supreme courts (Gibson, Caldeira, and Baird 1998), very little empirical research has been conducted on the media coverage of supreme courts outside the United States and Canada (Gies 2005). 2 This study of the patterns of press coverage of Israel's High Court of Justice (HCJ) not only presents a case study that is interesting in its own right, but it also provides a unique vantage point for the study and analysis of the nature of the relationship between supreme courts and the mass media.…”

“…2. Discussions of court-media relationships outside the United States and Canada have not dealt with high courts or constitutional courts, but rather have presented the topic in general (i.e., Kirby 2001;Gies 2005) or focused on specific courts, such as criminal courts (Ericson 1995;Nobles and Schiff 2004). 2003 ;Entman 2004;Sauvageau, Schneiderman, and Taras 2006). Some have claimed that instead of providing critical and skeptical coverage of the Supreme Court, the U.S. media has been co-opted into producing the public image that the Court seeks to foster, essentially serving as the Court's publicist (Paletz and Entman 1980;Davis 1994;Haltom 1998;Jamieson 1998;Kennedy 1999).…”

“…2 2 Discussions of court‐media relationships outside the United States and Canada have not dealt with high courts or constitutional courts, but rather have presented the topic in general (i.e., Kirby 2001; Gies 2005) or focused on specific courts, such as criminal courts (Ericson 1995; Nobles and Schiff 2004). …”

“…Today, five permanent staff members are employed in the public relations department of the Courts’ Administration. This appears to be something of a global trend—media officers have been appointed in both civil- and common-law judicial systems (Gies 2005; Kirby 2001).…”