Personalizing the U.S. Supreme Court Through Attention to Individual Justices

Abstract

Objectives We examine media incentives shaping the nature of U.S. Supreme Court justices’ news coverage and, in particular, how those incentives often lead news outlets to concentrate coverage on particular justices on the Court. Methods First, we examine and model aggregate, over time patterns of news attention devoted to individual justices in the New York Times over the past four decades. Second, we compare and model temporal variation in individual justice coverage relative to generic coverage of the Supreme Court. Findings The results suggest that particular justices receive disproportionate attention from the national news media. Further, we demonstrate how individual justices have received a greater proportion of print media coverage over time and in a way that is shaped by internal division among the justices. Conclusion The findings provide a more complete and nuanced understanding of how national media utilize resources to maximize journalistic impact and personalize the Court as an institution.

How low can we go: Court approval effects on public opinion

“…Favorable news coverage about a Court decision can lead to increases in public support for the Court or a decision (Linos and Twist 2016), while negative coverage can reduce support (Denison, Wedeking, and Zilis 2020). In addition, when the media portrayals of individual justices paint them as political actors, people view the Court less favorably (Baird and Gangl 2006; Fogarty, Qadri, and Wohlfarth 2020; Rogol and Montgomery 2022). Unfortunately for the Court, television news is more likely to focus on the political nature of the judiciary (Spill and Oxley 2003) or only bring the institution up when divisive or constitutional cases are decided (Vining and Wilhelm 2010).…”

Politicized Battles: How Vacancies and Partisanship Influence Support for the Supreme Court

“…A similar phenomenon may have occurred with the Supreme Court. Consider volatile confirmation hearings (Cameron et al, 2013; Collins & Ringhand, 2016; Schoenherr et al, 2020), and media coverage that (A) increasingly treats the Court like the elected branches (Hitt & Searles, 2018; Fogarty et al, 2020) and (B) prefers to cover dissensus over collegiality (Bryan & Ringsmuth, 2016; Denison et al, 2020). Also, recall recent hearings that include the use of the so-called “nuclear option,” and McConnell’s about-face on whether nominations should occur during presidential election years.…”