There's been quite a role reversal at the highest court in the land when it comes to media coverage.  Just when it has become easier than ever to get all but maybe one or two of the justices to appear for a public speech or sit for a personal interview, the Supreme Court's leading reporter and commentator shunned the cameras at a recent panel discussion about her Pulitzer Prize-winning beat.

We readily admit that, normally, this would just be an inside baseball gossip item that would interest almost no one, except maybe a few Supreme Court practitioners and law professors.  But when the Supreme Court correspondent for the New York Times issues an ultimatum to a journalism conference that there's "a choice, either ... have me on the panel speaking candidly or ... have C-SPAN there," then that should be news for everyone and anyone interested in the Court and how it gets covered.

Here's what went down.  A week ago Thursday, Linda Greenhouse was scheduled to appear on a panel entitled "Covering the Court: Reporters on the Supreme Court Beat" at the AEJMC convention.

AEJMC stands for Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, so Greenhouse — along with five of her colleagues from news outlets like the Washington Post, the Legal Times and Slate — were scheduled to discuss all aspects of reporting on the Court in front of an audience of journalism educators. 

Not surprisingly, the panel attracted some attention, and AEJMC invited C-SPAN to broadcast the discussion.

As is usual, C-SPAN provided late notice as to whether their cameras would be able to cover the discussion "gavel to gavel," and so the panel organizer was only able to e-mail the panelists about the television coverage just the night before the event. 

Upon her arrival for the discussion, Greenhouse "became infuriated," according to someone on the scene, and claimed that she had no idea that C-SPAN would be televising the event.  Such broadcasting of her comments was unacceptable, and so Greenhouse issued her ultimatum.

Why did Greenhouse object? Well, according to people at the panel who spoke to the Columbia Journalism Review, Greenhouse said that, while she was ready to talk to a "room of academics," she "didn't want to have to modulate [her] comments for a national audience" that would see the program because of the cameras.

In the end to secure the headliner, the panel's organizer bowed to Greenhouse, told C-SPAN to leave and, apparently, Greenhouse went on with the show, offering her un-"modulated" thoughts and impressions.  But, for a journalist to issue such an ultimatum — especially a journalist who covers the camera-free (and until recently media unfriendly) Supreme Court, and at the annual convention of journalism educators — is remarkable and even more deplorable.

The profession of journalism has long considered itself to be the fourth estate — a surrogate for the public-at-large, enabling citizens to understand and participate fully in their government through the access and oversight provided by the news media. 

Many a journalist has supported this position by repeating the mantra that "a little sunshine is the best disinfectant."  But, as we have all seen through reporting scandals and media bias exposed in recent years, sometimes the gatekeepers in the news media need that sun to shine on them so we know who is feeding us our information and why they might be doing so.

It is worrisome that Greenhouse wanted to avoid any such broad public assessment of her insights and analysis.  Nevertheless, we cannot be surprised by her reluctance. 

After all, this is the same woman who, when she did provide un-"modulated" comments in a speech at Harvard University last year, stated that the Bush administration "had turned its energy and attention away from upholding the rule of law and toward creating law-free zones at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Hadditha, and other places around the world."  Indeed, she went on to note "the sustained assault on women's reproductive freedom and the hijacking of public policy by religious fundamentalism."

Such an unfiltered view into the souls of our surrogates seems especially important as the public discusses and digests the news often fed to them by media elites.  After all, if reporters are just proxies for the public, aren't we entitled to the un-"modulated" views of those covering our public institutions? 

A little sunshine is the best disinfectant, and it would be nice if a certain Pulitzer Prize- winning reporter understood that maxim applied not only to her beat but to herself, too.