off whatever free speech we have. >> quickly, what would be the disadvantages if this is passed? >> verizon would go from being able to innovate and provide quality services to their consumers to basically having to go to the fcc to ask permission for new managed services or new ways to deal with network congested or security threats that have not been foreseen before. .

for two years, and in fact, during that two year period, at&t invested more in their network more than any other network operator. it's not true that these are radically new concepts that will hurt network operators. in terms what the rules will do to companies like google, like twitter, like facebook, it preserves an innovation without permission ecosystem that allows for new start-ups with very few barriers to entry, with just a few dollars and garage and a computer to come up with a product, plug into

the internet and see whether consumers like that product or not, rather than have them go to at&t, comcast or verizon and say, can we have your permission to introduce this product to your users? >> scott, question for you. a lot of people distrust large companies and they look at their phone bills and say, why am i being charged all these things? how do you effectively combat the arguments you've been making with just the general distrust of companies we've seen, you know, meltdowns in the financial markets. right now, it's just not something that people feel very strongly about. when you say open internet, they're going to relate to that. and the information or the letters coming into congress are saying those things. so that's not something that comes out of thin air. >> but it doesn't. it comes because there's this political demonization

campaign. they know that if they use words like "discrimination, blocking, degrading" big companies want to do big things that they can generate people to be concerned. but let's go back to the facts. are >> just one question there even if it's not true in your mind, what about the moment of those letters coming in and, you know, e-mails and those types of things, how does that factor into what's going to happen? >> i think what's interesting what will happen on the hill, you had 72 democrats write to the f.c.c., this is changing. this isn't what we wanted to do. but to go back to -- well, i'll conclude that. >> final word. >> we're going to have an interesting process. and i think we're in a key moment on whether policymakers will preserve the kind of internet that's enabled it to be the most successful tool for

democracy or whether we're going to turn the internet into something that looks like the cable system. >> [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> a look at the media and the supreme court. following that, pollster peter hart host as focus group in the fill dill fi yeah area. also weekly addresses from the president and a speech from carly fiorina on health care registration.

>> this is c-span's "america and the courts." next a discussion on the relationship between the supreme court and the media. journalists who cover the high court talked about the public's understanding of the supreme court and the media's role in educating the public on the judicial branch of government. princeton university hosted this discussion last month. >> anyway, it is so exciting to be here. thank you so much for inviting

me. what a classy group. but forget all that. what is especially thrilling to me is to see andy m -- amn marie slotchchick. she was the dean here for several years. but 23 years ago she was the maid of honor at our wedding. so ann marie, wonderful to see you. i'm real estatey delighted to see with emily adam and dalia because i think we do different things even as we do the same things. we cover the court in different forms in different -- in different ways, but i just would like to say how much i admire your work in particular. i mean dalia and emily have really redefined the way the

court is covered in many represents with an irreverence and intelligence that hasn't been seen before. adam has brought new vigor to the supreme court beat including to a wonderful story. you really stick it to anthony kennedy. adam also has many other virtues, including the fact that he knows what east coming here, is that his -- what is coming here. is that his wife saved our dog's life when he ate a pair of my daughter's underwear. it really gets a lot worse from there. if you were to ask, the peculiar thing about the supreme court is that it is as one -- it is at once very well known as a important

institution and virtually unknown in terms of what it does and who's on it. and the justices themselves for peculiar reasons recognize this and sometimes have a little fun with it. and i'll give you an example. it's not just dalia who has a great fondness for david suitor. david suitor as he often did once not too long ago was driving from his home to new hampshire. and he stopped to get something to neat a restaurant in massachusetts. and he's sitting there. and a couple comes up to him. he said, i know you, you're on the supreme court, right? >> david sutor and david briar are frequently mixed up with each other. it happens to both of them all the time. >> and the guy says to sutor. you're on the supreme court,

right? your steven briar. so he said, yes, i'm steven briar. and they chatted for a little while. but then the guy said. now let me ask you a question, what's the best thing about being on the supreme court? he paused for a moment and said, i have to say it's the privilege of serving with david sutor. now how can you not love an institution where it's suitable. one thing they almost always say is, you know, it's too partisan. it focuses on the political differences between the justices. it focuses on who's a democratic appointee and who's a republican appointee. and it doesn't focus enough on the law. now if you would to ask me what's wrong with supreme court

coverage, i would say is that it doesn't focus enough on the politics o a situation. and it doesn't focus enough on who's a democratic appointee and who's a republican appointee. the way i see the court, much of the time. not always. i think the court historically 47 of the cases almost every year are decided unanimously. another chunk are 7-1. 8-2. if you look at the cases that are about, you know, the things we care about. does the constitution protect the the wife's choice. the effort to camouflage that into a gauze of law, i think it's part to uncover.

sewn yeah -- sonia sotomayor, as you recall in her testimony, she was asked what's her judicial philosophy. and she said, i follow the law. what an insult to our intelligence that comment is. what a cynical use of the confirmation process because you know who follows the law? anton and scalia follow the law. ruth ginsberg follow the law. because they both highly ethical. they're both skilled at the business of judging. but on the constitutional issues we care about, they see things completely differently because they have sircht judicial philosophies. and that's what matters what their philosophies are. following the law is not a philosophy. it's a an excuse not to answer questions. and i i think what we should do

as journalists. i recognize y damn had a different job than i do as a diloton who breezes in and write as new yorker story every once in a while, but i think it is imperative that we do our best to uncover the political sources of the key decisions at the supreme court. and that's what i try to do. [applause] >> it's going to seem as though jeff and i ca lewded so seamlessly. am i going to segway to what jeff said. but i want to start by saying, thank you very, very much for inviting me to participate on this distinguished panel on this beautiful place. it's been a long time since i've been at princeton and i'm sort of wondering why.

i want to suggest something a little bit different from what jeff proposed. i've been covering the supreme court for 10 years this term, that there are precisely two stories that we in the media tell about the supreme court. and that's it. that's all we got. we've got story one. which is the story that jeff just urged upon you and that is, this is fundamentally a political institution. it matters whether you're a pointed by a democrat or a republicans. it matters if you are a democrat or republican. this is an ends-dritch ideological institution that at this moment is very fascinating balanced. 4-4. with anthony kennedy aligning himself with one side or the other. that's story one. then there's story two. story two is essentially not story one. story two is all the difference stories that we tell when the court doesn't behave that way. and those are an interesting set of stories because they can

be the stories that you tell when you talk about the court with individuals about the brokering that goes on, the influence. a lot of those things don't have anythinging to do with ideology. another part of it is there is this thing called the law. and there is this immutable thing called the constitution. and to the suggest that the court is simply an ood logical, political plan that really vote s in chambers it's just not accurate. i think that whenever the court sur pries us by not being 5-4. race to tell some version of story two. here's why the court didn't come down 5'4". the reason we're so utterly schizophrenic in telling story one and story two is because

they're absolutely true. the court is and it is designed to be both a political and divided institution. and it's also a lot of other thicks. it's an institution that does more than just split 5-4 based on what you had to breakfast. it's an institution that's trying to try ang goo late against something -- triangulate against something. on tuesday, i would write, oh, my god i was a hearing with that subject. three days later, they'll hear a case that has to do where the confrontation law, some matter that hasn't nothing to do

ideology. look at them triagulatting massively against the constitution. the court is by design. and sometimes reporters tell story one and story two in the same piece. we toggle back and fourth. it is burely political and not political at all. i want to just discuss that there are a lot of people who really like story one. the people bhol -- are like -- which way is he going to go? it's a great, great story. i've tilling it for years. readers love the 5-4 political story. because they get it. it's politics. it's no different than an

election story. they get that and they are very week they say. it's scalia. i think it maps very easily on to their view on how they want to look at the court. let me tell you the judicially committee really liked story one. the story is a completely political entity and all they need to do is sometimes take that nominee like a magic eight ball. and shake them this will they tell you what their logical opinions are. when you ask them, i'm not any of those things and i'm just the law. and while it seems different, they think they're applying the law. so let me just suggest brief sli the most interesting

moments for me as a report ner the 10 years i covered the stories between one and two. and the best way to goat him, where you are on guns, on abortion and where you are on affirmative action. nothing else matters. we're not going to ask story two type questions because we don't believe you do anything other than vote your ideology. the other thing i find very interesting moments between this collision is when the court does something. all of us in the media have to figure out how to tell this story. we watched oral argument. it really looked like they were

towarding it down. we start to test stair two narratives. >> here is john. and they're not necessarily political stories. so i just want to zhaugs i think the media both does a very good job with story one and also a bad one with story one because it's so easy to say this is pure undiluted politics. i really credit te new media with this. not slathe. but the the advent is fantastic. law processors are done a really good job of prope rating the conversation about the court in very scholarly ways that make it very, very clear that this isn't just all politics every time. the new media has already done

it. when anthony tamarity has the -- quoted it, the people knew him. there's a conversation between the media and the court and the public is to really think about the public is capable of understanding that story one is true. but also story two is true. and they're both true all the time. and i think we need to give the public more credit rather than having them here. i look forward to the conversation. [applause] >> it's really a treat to be here in princeton especially

with these fantastic journalists. i want to respond that ran through the class. you want them to take the cases that have divided lower court judges. it would actually be a bit surprising if you had a lot of unanimous decisions that have divided judges. it's that it's always the same four with justice kennedy being the exception. there will be nothing at all wrong with lots of and lots of cases. if you saw various different type cases. you see the liberals. lining up in lock step and that makes it har that in this since this is a highly political court. i don't think they're political in the democratic muns sen.

but there are ideologically in a judicial philosophy sense political that's inarguable. the numbers prove it. i wanted also to make the sthaugs we spend too many time thinking about the supreme court. after all, they may be decide maybe 70 classes a year. meanwhile, you know, throughout our enormous legal system, we don't give or adequate attention to say a real importance nine circuit decision. but the times will have me covers an argument in about restriction. it might be better to draw them away from the court. sometimes i think it's like the death penalty. tethdenlt is a terrible story.

meanwhile there are two that are jail. they don't have -- it is true that there are people conflicted of crimes. we'll get the pro bono lawyers and everything else. i won't press that metaphor any further. it's hard to cover the court because the usual tools of the journalistic toolbox really aren't available to you. >> there's almost no inside dope. and if i were i'm not sure how interesting it would be. >> so you don't call to it. you're trying to make sense up and explain to people what it is the court just did and you're trying to satisfy at least two audiences at once.

one of them is very fist kated and you yave their approval because you don't want thome think you are a smart guy. and then you have ordinary readers but not on sessdzed with the maul. you explain quite difficult cases to them. and to do the two things it's really hard. i remember when i started my position. i said to one of my colleagues. i started at the new york times. i said tam, what do i do? it's easy. it's easy. you call people on the phone and you write what they say. it doesn't really work for the supreme court. you're also a little bit constrained and it's easy to fall into this. the court has so much invested in his prestige and authority. they are don't have an army.

people do what they say because why? because we believe in it. they want you to take it seriously. there's nothing wrong with a little mischief. and there's nothing wrong with trying to find thems in left armer points. it's sometimes disappointing to me. there was a decision yesterday. i read my story in the washington story. i read the eblings lent story in "the wall street journal." they're pretty good stories. but i think the coverage is of very high quality. they're very little different. i'm not sure if we need four of them. it's kind of a commodity. you try to -- you know, i remember writing a few stories last year that i thought maybe start an inteelect chulling conversation. or sometimes you write about a

case and you think you understand. there's a place calledic bod. it souds like a 9/11 case. it seems that it was a case of something radical under it could be dismissed. it's hard to come back and say, that's what i told you about it a week ago. that's a hard genre. i'm leg lucky to do something that's knot complete pi pig to yesterday's developments. i echo what jeff said to son of degree -- she's got at great job. she's a good lawyer. she happens to have got then golden ticket. it's a little hard to see how

burdened justice thomas in particular but justice alito are by what is -- you know, it's a great job. but there are many, many people who could do this job. this is a court of nine, able distinguished lawyers of a kind of which there are hundreds in the land and they happen to get the job. on the other hand, what we saw at the hearings where she por ported to d -- i hate to use the cliche in a kind of a teachable moment. to say, here's what i should do. with we're like robots. we take the lawn and we apply it to the facts. it was even now by the standard of your low point. mr. roberts is someone who was sparring with the senators. you had some sense at least of a first-rate intellect that we

saw. we just didn't see it now. i guess finally, i want to make the case from a slightly different direction that maybe supreme court journalism is overrated. there's -- there's a lot out there. these days you can get the decision in the same day. you can use the transcript last year. you have" slate." you the triple threat game called toobin. you have first rate and erblized log law. if you're interesting on great stenciling. mine go into oblivion. the bad debt bureau is very

important. really important. yet another supreme court story, hard to say. [applause] >> hello to all of you. it's a pleasure to be here with these folks who have already started such an interesting conversation. let me see what if anything i can add to it. i do think adam may have talked himself out of his own job. if there's anyone in the audience? i hear that the "new york times" is taking applications. i want to turn the conversation from politics to a more personal element. or to talk about the way that the political divisions intercept with the way the jusities want to be seen personally. i have been reading in the past week, a new biography of

justice's scalia that's written by joe, eskupid. >> and there are two anecdotes that jumped out at me. justice scalia is not -- is the only child. in terms of our discussion today, i was struck by a moment, i think it's in 1991 where justice scalia is talking about perpdinal university. and he said that the media is incomp dent. and this ising a, you know, a common fee sys where hear. obviously, the president

accepted. all of us practice law. i don't think that the reason that the people in this pa demole such a great job is because they are lawyers, but there are some relationships there that maybe been worth exploring. because justice caly yeah hates the prend and has for a long time. he has gone aren't the press. he is such -- so good at self-expression and on his book tours, he has done this very successfully and gotten a lot of attention. it's been true about particular cases. he was so outspoken to the pledge of allegiance case, resumeably that he recuesed himself from that decision. he's been an explainier of

bush's war. now i don't think that the other jusities share his disdain for the press. but i do think that in their own way, they are also starlting to either going around us or to talk more about their reactions to cases and to let us see who they are as people. which changes our o olympian very about stract view of the court. jisstiss briar and justice kennedy have sat with provides with jeff. justice ginsberg last week surprisingly before the case had bngke sided talked agget her distress. she -- there's something going on here which is changing the way people see the court and making it i would argue more

accessful. i'm just a big fan not just because i'm a journalists. we can understand these 7 and 15 second. if we know something about the people behind them. and however many times i have heard a judge say that to me. every time i think about the case that i need you to understand it's in the four cornererers of this season. there's always more to understand and to argue with. and to the extent that they are more likely to talk about those decision a. although one could argue otherwise and in fact the power . they don't have any cops so we have to police in their, a, political godliness. they have to say. and i think the other thing

that matters about the way in which the justices are trying to come across. is that it complidse so badly with the confirmation processed. because in that moment i have something to offer. they are put through a lot of media scrutiny. and we read about sotomayor's walks in new york city and her family. and anyone can bring up. speeches she made a long time ago. and then you try to with hold themselveses as much as possible. i agree with atcham we saw a morely reden of that from justice sotomayor. it's in the end, he is the person we have to thank for

this umpire met for. which is not understanding the court. and the real problem westbound this is that the conversation process because it happens under big lights in washington and there are these day night hearings. it could be a touchn't moment. but it completely isn't. and so there's this disconnect. on the one hand you have a amount of worming and coming down from the mountain but before you goat the demourt this moment where your -- we're talking about different threads of injured. perhaps we could get really interesting on explaining some. that's why the plit story gets told so often. we completely lose that opportunity. i'm really ununcertain to doing that. but i'm looking forward to

everybody's thoughts. thank you. [applause] >> we're going to throw this open now for questions. we've already had the beginning of a debate about the very nature of the coverage of the court. and we could continue that on the panel. but i want to open this up and -- oh. >> i am sure i could be heard. nope. [laughter] >> it's on c-span, so. >> i've lost my law professor voice. is this on? >> first of all, this is a delight. the one great thing -- not the one -- but one great thing about working with the federal is you get federals.

adam, i don't think your job's in peril. i think you need those four newspapers covering that story because i think that's part of the smith. maybe the truth that we tell ourselves as american, that one of the things you always say when you describe yourself to others. >> fosh lawyers. >> is we are a culture that >> foreign lawyers. is we are are the culture that when we have a conversation are in the front page of our major newspapers and this is a deep, deep part of who we are. i think what i like all of you to represent on -- is that because the supreme court is such a great institution and we pay so much attention to it? or is that because the fact

that we see the supreme court that way. which arrows do they run? i'd be interested to what extent you think that's true, that we really are much more law focused. and this is something really distinctive. or ising this we like to tell about ourselfs? >> starting the last part. i do think the supreme court occupies a spral role in the america y key in the way that high courts don't. largely because the court has been added for song lock. and in part because its best decisions have been so important and transformative. it really does something spornt ex-tor nair. we care about it more often than we need to because it is

in addition to that. last year they had a debate whether the supreme court must excuse themselves before they got that. their ruling only applies to a quite exceptional kates. they chose to kick it out. so it has that function as well. i think, yeah, one of my favered observation fwiss court was by one of my favorite justices robert faction. we are not final becauser infallible. we are infallible becauser final. it's been set up is this is the supreme court and because of that structure the system has looked to the court for the

last word. and there is this tremendous respect for the court as an institution. so that as much as the southerners hated the dissegregation. a massive resistance was not going to work. as futch as they were upset. there was never the remotest poss pillity that there would be this partner. dit apoying of the court's order. >> and i do think that much as i am somewhat incal about the court. i think over the past, you know, during the bush administration. here you have the country understandably terrified by. at war in two different countries.

that the president of the united states was not good enough. hamdi. uner detectived judges with no atable to the public gets to swinging to the president. you are not treating the worst of the worst to quote robert cheney. that's an amazing structure that it might work pretty well. >> just one sort of visceral glass. i sometimes flike the court court to a second dar church in this country. because -- and i don't know because we're a litigious people and we worship the court. i think it's an amazing thoing walk into the u.s. supreme court as opposed to other supreme courts in different countries. you just don't have that

stheans you're working on hole kwlip ground. and i see that as a canadian. it's not holy grail to me. but it really is an aon theishing thing. the justices are so mystified. they're self misdefying. often the press cores is put on this position of having accolades there's this sense that this is irks rakular. i think it's quite deliberately cricketted that way. there is a place that's quyzy special that you know, may just be because we don't have a religion in this country. and the other other thing i wanted to say and this goes toe something emily says, we're also very conflicted because we want to know the jusities as people. it's very important to understand that we know

sotomayor mom's sitting there. we need to see that. this conversation here -- this was the first time where people >> calling in and crying. will >> they were so movered by this women's stair. -- but when you look at the popularity rates, the more we know them, the less we like them. the guy who is have the lowest ratings the guys talking on cnn, no offense. the people who sort of throw open their ropes an show us the person inside -- >> you know, enough about clarence thomas, ok? really. love the guy y lone. , please.

>> emily? >> i mean, the evidence for dalia's point also about the secular religion, the extra attention we give the court. it's popularity, the court is consistently much higher and it was true, you know, nine months after bush vs. cour core. . they were back up to over a -- 64%. that did not damage them as an institution. going to the point does this secular religion. it is the that one the court incorporate yourself. >> if i could just add one point that -- you know, one person who respect r -- respects the court i think is barack obama. i don't think barack obama thinks about the court a lot.

i don't think he cares the way a lot of us care about the court. i think he believes change comes from the political season. are the ex-active branch and so the best thing to do is get the hell out of a way. i think he is someone who is just not -- and it's not out of ignorance. i mean he -- think he believes to political change does not come from the courts. and is not particularly hopeful or expected that the cours will ever lead the way. >> any of you who want to ask questions should come up to the fike phone phones in the front. thank you so much. it's really a pleasure to put

faces to names. i've heard a lot from all of you about the different theories about why the public cares to read about the supreme court despite maybe their irrelevance or whatever. that they're sort of our deety because of the personal answer buzz of of the politicians, only a couple of different reasons. mr. libtech you mentioned that it affects hundreds of millions of people in their decisions. so it was very little talk about the litigants and i'm curious particularly as one who cares about prisoner rights in particular, how you all incorporate the public's interest. if you think that the public is interested through their

they're concerned about value it does not just affect detainie. it affects how we prereceive ours. we just executed somebody yesterday or today -- >> yesterday. >> nobody mentioned mohammed's execution. you know, nobody's really going to care about whether you going to put more detail into the plate. so i'm curious whether the litigant story is ever -- and i've read your story. they do inform the storys that you end. but just talk about that a little bit. >> i'll start by saying justice scalia' principle complaint is

when we talk about a case that starts with "poor, old widow"." that's all we care about who's more sthitics. that's kind of delusional what the things that she said. focusing on the litigants is to the court because they want to to cuss on the group. i will say one of the ways the court has covered the court because i think adams really brought it to this coverage. i mean, they are people that are focused on telling the litigants stories. and i think it's a bit of a misnomer. and this is where i take issue with ydams. we're all writing the sametory. and i think there are reporter out there who do a really superjob.

and talk about where this is going down the line. i think that we don't all do it all the time. but compared to what i think the court used to do. i think we're doing a butch better job. the >> the struth to tell the story. but then and explain what that matters? it's going affect a lot of people. it also takes space. it's not necessarily something that is going to happen the day after a decision. it may more likely happen in the lead utch to a case. but then you can take the state your name. they will tell you part of the story. sometimes it is not esly done. that is how a lot of

pimeorvelirks you know, the written work that we all do up here, it's a deafly rare fide experience of i'm understanding the court. >> and i don't think it's an either or pop litigation. so you go visit with the 13 led student. you let her tell the story and you entrain the story how that it ins in. i get a much, much billing irreactioning to my fred sesssor wasn't create about doing. the second part of your question, know is he even larter. editors want a paragraph. what are the consequences that the new aven firefighting testing decision? >> i don't know. nobody knows. what are the consequences. and once wants to find an opportunity to to come back at it. the rhythms there are moments

in time when it's easy to write stories and it returns to something we call a pig. >> ok. the gentleman. is it a myth that justices get on the court and completely change that philosophy. or sit that predictable and the con fir station hearing is going to find out what's going to the court is so much integrated into the place cal system that -- it was always kind of a myth. there were prominent us the jiss bran ben. at least use tiss warren. both appointed byizeen-hour. david southor, there was a time when the per lynn wall that sounded like a good guy.

but the last six points to the court sotomayor, we don't aley know anything about sotomayor. but i mean olyo, briar, thomas all ex-chact as predicted. and i think sotomayor will be exactly azepe dicked. and i don't think we will see in our lifetime again a surprise. because the people who care about points, the -- corps of the president's party will immose and i think you know, -- you want to know who's going to be -- how the supreme court is? it's goinging to be tell me how your -- going to tell you tomorrow. >> david?

>> my question is about television, the most outspoken criticism and breaking tv on the court whether you're in the long term or return durn you think we'll have supreme court coverage for this is an issue that gets so much attention. i cannot g that people are really going to want to watch. most of all argument. when m.p.r. puts the radio recordings on. i do not hear excitement it's a long wavey event. it's not something that is going to suds enly turn into the latest youtube sensation. maybe like a two minute clib. but the whole tenor of it, not so much and so you know, given

that -- one i think the justices have a point that unless people really are going to sit through the whoil thing and understand it. the sound bite of it really could damageer them personally in a way that they don't want. it's hard for me to take a stance on this one as annoying as it is i public establish a quotation. and i agree with emily that it would make c-span exciting to put -- [laughter] >> coverage of the supreme. >> this may be on k upon. >> no english. i should be. it's a primary american institution that gives. i think it's a crime that the court is not on television.

i think every excuse i've heard from the jisstisses, to not put it on television or ult matly -- ultimately. the world will watch "dancing with the stars." but i think there's no jusity equation for it. and for a court that consistently de rates us for not getting what they do. the idea that they're not going to let us see them what to do is so. >> the idea that you know, -- i mean, let's. the supreme court is the government. the government is telling us like, well, if you don't edit things in the way that we want, we won't like you watch, you

know what we do. who the hell are they to tell how to do our jobs. they don't -- they don't tell us in other context. how we can do and how we can ait. let them do our job. >> danny dnd you say before that the jus dises before themselves more so you. so you want the whole court to do that. >> i want them to go down their level. >> i think the popular -- popularity issues have nothing to do with the book tour. his confirmation hearing is one that nothing will dislodge. and i actually, i mean, i've seen those polls too. i really don't -- i mean, the

person that belongs to this day is sandra day o'connor. who 90% of the people think she's on court. i think we should pause and say today. it was very sad news that our husband john died yesterday. and he, sandra day o'connor's lives has been a teachable 80 years. and the way she handle her husband's issues was so graceful and so open endearing and at mireable that it's -- sorry to see him go. >> most of you alluded to sonia sotomayor and agreeing that her confirmation hearing is a sham.

i would like to know if the press will bring that about? >> wa, wa. you know, if you all took heart what adam said you know, about all of us writing the same story when we cover the court. it was times of billion. it was so funny. because you had newspapers that had eight seats in that room. someone was podcasting. somebody was answering. you were talking about nothing for five days. i kept thinking there's got to be a p.t.a. meeting somewhere that i could be covering. or something is really happening that's interesting. it's a debacle for all the reasons i might said.

i might disagree that it was rock bottom. but i think that we've gone so far down the road of turning this into embarrassment on ice. i mean just this horrific kind of parade of off -- it plays to the worse of those who are watching and really what we're watching for is a gotcha moment where their going to embarrass themselves and we're going to feel bad for watching. my own sense of it is, all you can do is unspool it. all you can do is turn it back into a one-day process. they used to do this on paper. they used to do it in three hours. we should agree that no one comes out looking better and everybody comes out looking worse, then we could agree to do it on half a day on paper and do it