Check out this Tweet from the Star's Tim Steller.
In legal terms, Sen. Alexander is making a case for "Summary Judgment". Alexander is saying that even if all the facts are true, the House's case does not meet the legal standard for impeachment. This type of analysis is common in legal circles.
Notice how Steller re-frames Alexander's argument? "the president and his supporters would be really angry." I don't think that Steller is trying to misrepresent Alexander's point. I think that Tim Steller doesn't understand Alexander's point.
Steller's inability to understand this legal argument is yet another example of why the journalism is failing. Journalists like to think that their product is too sophisticated for audience tastes. They claim that in the internet cacophony the shrill arguments crowd out the sophisticated arguments....bloggers and Tweeters crowd out real journalism.
The opposite is true. Journalists are generalists. Steller doesn't know the standards for Summary Judgment.
In fact, Steller doesn't even know how to SPELL "judgment".
Newspapers are disappearing because reporters are the LEAST qualified to discuss any complex topic. Tim Steller doesn't understand legal arguments, but he's not alone. The Republic's Craig Harris doesn't understand charter school economics and Rachel Leingang doesn't understand the intricacies of higher education.
It's OK to be ignorant. I don't understand the complexities of civil engineering or professional basketball. Of course, I don't write about civil engineering or professional basketball.
Before the internet, it was useful to have a smart person, trained in journalism to cover complex topics as best they could. Sure, it wasn't sophisticated, but it was all that we had.
Now, I can go directly to the source. I can follow, say, NASA or the Supreme Court. If that's too difficult, I can follow scientists who cover NASA or lawyers who cover the Supreme Court. There's no reason to follow journalists who have no scientific or legal training as they try to figure out what is happening at NASA or the Supreme Court.
Just like there is no reason to follow Tim Steller as he mangles Lamar Alexander's legal analysis.