Trying to avoid the Observer Effect... or... did you get that in writing?

Although Schrödinger’s Cat is only marginally related to any discussion of the

Observer Effect, on the Internet, any observation of kittens pulls in extra eyeballs.

In physics, the Observer Effect is defined as the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation itself.

In psychology, the Observer Effect, also called the Hawthorne Effect, refers to how persons being observed tend to change their behavior because they are being observed. In other words, the playground bully was a perfect angel when Sister was watching -- but watch out when Sister turned her back!

The political system is ordinarily closed to and, indeed, hostile to, observation. (We don't want nobody nobody sent.) To the extent that they may sometimes make observations of the political system in operation, journalists (including lawyers who function as journalists, or try to) may well cause those observed to alter their behavior.

On a macro level, this is undoubtedly a good thing. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." Despite his many hypocrisies, the man could turn a phrase. Even when he contradicted himself. (Also Jefferson: "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.")

Whatever. I take it as an article of faith that 'sunshine is the best disinfectant.' (The exact Brandeis quote is, "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.") I sincerely hope that, in some small way, because I have brought attention to the process, this site has contributed to the improvement of the local judiciary.

But, on a micro level, on the individual level, I worry. For over 25 years I wanted to be a judge. I can empathize, very sincerely, with those many lawyers who also wish to be judges, and, necessarily, therefore, also with those who aspire to a temporary appointment by the Illinois Supreme Court. I reserve the right to like some people who are chosen better than others, or even not at all, but, whether I know them or not, whether I've ever heard of them before or not, I can relate to their ambition. So, in general, I don't want something I do or say here to undermine any specific individual aspirant.

But... sometimes news happens. It would be fair game, by any journalistic standard, to report it. But I also know how the Observer Effect can work in politics (and anybody who tells you judicial appointments aren't political is selling you hokum): The premature disclosure of a likely appointment may make said likely appointment extremely unlikely.

So when I heard about a person appearing before the Democratic Party's Pre-Slate Making meeting last week and informing the Party worthies that said person was about to be appointed to one of the vacancies recently posted by Justice Theis, that was fair game. I could have reported that immediately; I didn't need to wait for the anonymous comments to stack up in my comment queue (three, as of this morning) with the same information.

But I didn't do that. Not right away. Instead, armed with the tools acquired in Journalism 101 (whatever the course was actually called at Loyola some 45 years ago) I reached out to the Supreme Court's press officer and sought confirmation concerning the appointment and whether an announcement of the appointment in question was imminent. Maybe I'd even ferret out word about the second appointee.

Alas. Word came back, and promptly, too, that no announcement is imminent regarding the two Theis vacancies.

So I've continued to sit on the story. Even though all sorts of people seem to know about it already. And that public knowledge may or may not trigger the Observer Effect.

Mind you, if I were a Supreme Court Justice and I had indicated to a person prior to the pre-slating meeting that he or she was likely to get my nod for a particular appointment, I would probably have encouraged that person to add his or her name to the list of persons presenting credentials. So word would get out, but I would not be offended. Or, if I wanted to hold off on the announcement for my own purposes, I might have called Jacob Kaplan myself and explained the situation, advising that my person would be adding his or her name to those scheduled to appear but that I didn't want my prospective appointee to mention it. In which case I might be a tad miffed if said prospective appointee spilled the beans and possibly motivated, then, to look elsewhere.

If the Observer Effect submarines anyone here, I have a clear conscience. But, good heavens, what a crazy process we have.