The traditional image of courts of last resort is one of dignity and aloofness. Courts typically go to great lengths to foster such an image. They operate under formal processes and rigid bureaucratic procedures. They appeal to higher authorities, particularly supreme governing documents, which suggest personal biases of judges are minimal or non-existent. The members of such courts often adopt formal attire, particularly robes, and hold themselves to certain canons of ethical behavior.

This image would appear to distance these judicial bodies from political players advocating transparency and informality, particularly the press. Indeed, journalists would seem to be the polar opposites of judges sitting on high courts. They are typically perceived as hostile to authority, disdainful of bureaucracies, and suspicious of formal legal language that tends to obscure more than explain.

As one insider at the US Supreme Court noted,

Yet, as this volume has demonstrated, justices and journalists in various national systems do possess such a relationship. Indeed, it has become a common element across the globe. Moreover, it is not insignificant. That relationship affects public understanding of judiciaries, relationships between judiciaries and other political players, as well as a judiciary's ability to function as an arbiter of the law.

The nature of that relationship is shaped by the Court's role in the political system in which it is situated. Where courts are perceived as less autonomous and more influenced by other political actors, they may face the need to assert their independence as actors. As Scribner points out, this is particularly acute in Latin American nations. But it also true elsewhere, such as in Indonesia and Korea.