MARK JUDGE: Liberal Supreme Court journalists admit incompetence, prescribe propaganda and harassment of justices.

Liberal reporters who cover the Supreme Court don’t know what they are doing. To fix this, they need to be much more hostile toward conservative justices and even more propagandistic in their coverage.

This was the theme of a live symposium recently held in Washington, D.C. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern of Slate, Elie Mystal of the Nation, and Jay Willis of the leftist Balls and Strikes all admitted that their coverage of the Supreme Court over the years had been terrible — not because of its obvious leftist bias, but because it had failed to prevent conservative court opinions from being handed down. Calling the past few years “a wake-up call” and the result of “the sinking feeling that we’ve been doing it all wrong,” the speakers argued that they have been too deferential to the Supreme Court and its traditions.

Instead of passively “translating” for readers the often byzantine text of Supreme Court rulings, reporters now need to cover the court with the aggression that is usually used when reporters cover Congress or the White House. They need to trace cases long before they make it to the high court, the reporters claimed. They also need to do a lot of grisly stories about people who are “victims” of the court’s decisions, particularly women harmed by the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Also, when it comes to conservatives and Christians, the new journalistic model calls not for empathy and insightful coverage, but all-out antipathy.

It’s quite an argument. Acknowledging that they have no reporting skills, lefty writers have decided that repeating the propaganda that pushes their agenda, rather than more fairness and broader coverage, is the solution. They’re treating cancer by smoking cigarettes.

Read the whole thing.