The Rhetoric of Disputes in the Courts, the Media, and the Legislature

Authors

Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr, University of Pennsylvania

Publication Date

2006

Abstract

Recent events like the Terri Schiavo case typify the familiar phenomenon of a matter of legal significance becoming the focus of attention on the part not only of the courts, but also of the public, the media, and the government. Legal contemplation tends to consider these and other legal disputes isolated from their community roots and insulated from their political implications. Most private disputes remain private, and do not attract the interest of the media or the political branches of government. The media's estimate of public curiosity, however, transforms a select number of disputes into high-profile cases, which leads to the interaction of legal issues, background facts, and political action. The vocational framework of each professional observer-lawyer, reporter, legislator-shapes their various perceptions and interpretations of the event. These three categories of professional observers resemble the three types of discourse found in the Aristotelian tradition of rhetoric, which should remind us that the purposes of judicial inquiry are inherently different from those of policy making and general public discussion. Each has different responsibilities, interests, and information upon which to rely. It is surprising that the media, the public, and the legislature have not yet fully learned this ancient lesson.

Recommended Citation

Hazard,, Geoffrey C. Jr (2006) "The Rhetoric of Disputes in the Courts, the Media, and the Legislature," Georgia Law Review: Vol. 40: No. 2, Article 5.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol40/iss2/5