This is on the Media's Midweek podcast. I'm Brooke Gladstone.

This week, the Senate held confirmation hearings for Katanji Brown-Jackson's nomination

to the Supreme Court. Her ascension to the highest court in the land is all but guaranteed

with the Democrats holding a slim majority in the Senate, and once she gets there, her

rulings, her dissenting opinions, her silences, her words will all become fodder for the media

who cover the court.

Given that, we thought it would be a good moment to review our breaking news consumers'

handbook, Scotis Edition. The pitfalls of covering the court, though few, are deep and hazardous.

Because the court basically does one of two things that either decides to hear a case

and issue a big decision, that happens over 80 times a year, or it decides not to hear

a case. That happens upwards of 7,000 times a year, and simple as that may seem, news

organizations often confuse the two.

Frequently, you'll hear something along the lines of the Supreme Court affirmed, or

the Supreme Court upheld, when in fact it did nothing of the sort.

That's Amy Howe of Scotis blog, the gold standard source for breaking court news.

It just left the lower court decision in place, and it doesn't have effect nationwide.

Right, other appeals courts can take it up.

Exactly. The decision usually comes from a federal appeals court, and so it will be good

law in that region of the country, but it doesn't have any effect in other parts of the

country in less than until those lower courts weigh in.

New York Times Court reporter Adam Liptock says that in some cases, letting a decision

stand can be very meaningful.

...