Explanatory Journalism Today

How do you do #ExJo when nobody knows what's going on?

When news is breaking, explanations take a back seat to the news. Ideally, someone writing a mainbar will have a few minutes to try to clarify at least a few key points, and then have the time or the backup for a more thorough job to be done later; even better, a sidebar might be assigned to a writer with expertise in the topic.

But at the Hunter Biden plea hearing today, nobody seemed totally sure what was going on. The judge had questions nobody could answer. The prosecutors and defense lawyers disagreed sharply as to what they had agreed to.

And beyond the specifics being argued over, I for one was left with a whole lot of general questions. How involved do judges usually get in scrutinizing plea deals? What constitutional problems was the judge citing for a provision that would leave her monitoring Biden’s compliance with the deal? How common is it for immunity to be given “in perpetuity”?

For answers, I guess we can pick up the paper tomorrow, maybe! Let me clear: I think there was nothing wrong with the job done by the WaPo reporter, or a similar report by the NYT. The day’s hearing had a number of twists and turns, and just reporting what each side thought was going on was plenty of information, churned out at web speed. It’s just good to consider every now and then how hard this work can be!