[quote=mdk]
I think we're talking about two different things, or perhaps, you're talking about the end result when I'm only talking about the means. There's a great quote by Thomas Jefferson — 'The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.' I *detest* our national media, not for bias or one-sided-ness but for a pervasive incompetence and repugnant business practices. As relating to this thread, I'm reacting to the media's involvement in national discourse, specifically in legal cases, and I'm arguing that it's almost entirely a destructive influence, with few-if-any redeeming qualities. If I'm reading you right, you're arguing that 'we still need to talk about these things,' and I agree, but if that means we need to rely on the news corps to mediate the conversation, then I want nothing to do with it. I made a thread a while ago about how I get informed on a topic -- it's worth dragging out again, stand by for an edit, I'll find it for ya....EDIT: ! Not a thread after all, just an atypically long and thoughtful response in a Turt thread, which explains why it took so long to find. Fair warning, 'guide to the news' was written while I was plastered, but I stand by it sober.
[/quote]

I'm saying that the courts cannot be allowed to do whatever they want, to make whatever decisions they want, without public knowledge. Let me put it this way:
Laws are made in order to act as a moral code for a society. You break the law, you've done something bad, you get punished. You follow the law, you're doing okay. That moral code is, in a democratic society, set by the public (in theory) - we vote in those who're gonna make the laws what we think they should be. 
This moral code we have decided upon as a society is upheld in courts - it is where we determine whether that moral code has been broken, and the appropriate punishment if it has. It is therefore in public interest to ensure that the moral code is being upheld in the intended way - that what we think is "right" or "wrong" is what is actually being reflected in court, which [i]should[/i] only be making decisions based on what society has, through law, decided is "right" or "wrong".
If we do not ensure that court decisions (and laws, for that matter, though one way to do that is through court) are actually reflecting our ideas of right and wrong, then we give the court free reign to do as they like and to flaunt the moral code they're designed to be upholding.

From what I can gather, you agree with me in principle, but think that the practical way we do that - through the media - is fundamentally flawed. And I agree with that. My experiences with American media reflect exactly what you're saying, and I think it's appalling. Thing is, there [i]are[/i] ways to do the principle I'm discussing, without using the faulty lens of biased media - principally, by researching things in the exact manner you highlighted in that 'guide to the news' you posted. By doing that, you avoid biased media, and still keep abreast of what the courts and government are doing - which is what I am saying is so important to do.