Call for Feedback on 9/11 Arraignment Coverage

In general, I have received very positive reader response to Lawfare's neurotically-detailed military commissions coverage over the past few months. But yesterday, the estimable Spencer Ackerman suggested that Wells and I had gone to far at the 9/11 arraignment:  "Dear @lawfareblog," he tweeted. "Right now you are unreadable, & it's the 9/11 trial. Edit yourself. No one has time to read a chronicle." Spencer's tweet has me wondering whether we have struck the right balance between chronicling the events and commenting upon them. Starting with the D.C. Circuit habeas arguments, my goal in covering these hearings has not been, as Spencer suggested yesterday that it should be, to provide analysis--though I have often done that too. It has been to give a much-more-detailed account than does the press of what is actually happening in court. Spencer derides this as "one step above transcription"--and, in a sense, he is right. The instinct behind it has been that these cases produce a huge volume of commentary--often aridly devoid of the actual facts and arguments presented in the courts. So my instinct has been that it would be a service to readers simply report in detail what is happening. Commentary, also important, can come later. But Spencer's tweet raises an important question: Are we describing this material from the right level of altitude? Should we doing less blow-by-blow, giving less detail, and trying--as one of my old Washington Post editorial page colleagues used to say--to break through to higher ground? Are we being so detailed that nobody would really want to read this coverage? Should we continue what we are doing but also break through to higher ground? I'm interested in candid reader feedback, both from those who find this sort of coverage useful and from those who find it too granular. Please send me your thoughts and suggestions: wittes.lawfare@gmail.com. And thanks to Spencer for raising the issue.