The West Virginia Judicial Conference was in Wheeling earlier this month, and organizers brought in the Reynolds National Center for Courts and Media to conduct a one-day workshop for judges and journalists.

The event was designed to help each side do its job better, but it turned into an illuminating, almost emotionally exhausting day that felt like an eight-hour session with Dr. Phil McGraw. Judges and journalists rarely, if ever, get to speak candidly with one another. But candor, plus a little rancor and a fair amount of humor, were the orders of the day Oct. 17.

Thankfully, the two moderators -- retired Rhode Island Judge Robert Pirraglia and national award-winning television producer Peter Shaplen -- were more than skillful at keeping the conversations productive and not just combative, so we all stayed within the civil Dr. Phil format and didn't veer off into something more suitable for Jerry Springer.

I don't want to give the readers the wrong impression -- this was a fantastic day, something I never anticipated when I signed up for what I thought was a conference on media law. Instead, I got a better appreciation for the players within the legal system -- and judges in particular -- than I could have imagined. And I'd like to think the judges learned a few things about reporters as well.

The day began with the basic premise that West Virginia needs to preserve the independence of its judiciary, and a free press is an integral component in achieving that goal. As Ohio County Circuit Judge Arthur M. Recht has told me innumerable times, however, the press does not always make full use of its freedoms. Reporters seldom take the time to cover the courts adequately even though media outlets of years ago fought to gain access to judicial forums.

While we, the reporters, accepted that to be true, the judges needed to understand it's not always our fault. News organizations -- print, television and radio -- are spread so thinly at times that when the choice is between covering a court case or a parade, the parade often wins because it will sell more papers or provide better video for the evening broadcast. And it's not as though new reporters arrive on the job automatically versed in legal-speak -- covering the courts can be confusing and intimidating.

One of the biggest complaints the judges had of media court coverage was how often reporters make mistakes or show poor judgment, in their opinions. When Pirraglia and Shaplen polled the judges, the consensus was that as much as 50 percent of the court stories they saw contained inaccuracies.

That figure shocked me, but what they said next surprised me even more. When the moderators asked the judges whether they ever call reporters to tell them about a mistake, most of them said they do not. They let it go. Or as one judge said, "If we call, would you correct it? No. So why should we call you?"

And so we recognized the chasm between the judiciary and the press -- an utter failure to communicate on both sides. Reporters aren't asking enough questions before writing or airing their stories, and judges aren't taking the time to educate them when they get it wrong.

The impasse becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: Reporters will continue to make mistakes, and judges will continue to hold a negative view of the press. No bridge can span that gap unless both sides work together, and until the gulf narrows at least a little, the public loses.

Remember, most reporters don't have law degrees, and most news organizations in West Virginia do not have the staff and resources to allow one reporter to spend weeks covering just one trial. At the same time, reporters have First Amendment rights to protect them in many cases; judges don't. They are restricted in what they can say by the canons of judicial conduct. Reporters need to understand that and work to build enough trust so a judge will feel comfortable educating a reporter -- usually off the record -- about a case or legal matter so the end product does not fall into that embarrassing 50 percent of error-filled stories. And reporters need to put their egos aside and correct mistakes when they learn about them.

If the judges and journalists at this conference agreed on anything, it was that we respected the role the other played in a democracy. In a way, we're not that different. Both judges and journalists are supposed to look at the world with untrammeled, unbiased eyes. But we're humans, not automatons, which means emotions and personal convictions affect how we deal with one another, thus bringing tension to the relationship between the press and the bench.

Is it such a bad thing, though, for judges and journalists to eye each other warily, for that tension to exist? Probably not. For reporters to do their job well, they must continue to be curious and ask the tough questions, even of judges. For judges to do their jobs well, they must administer justice first, even if that means stonewalling a pushy reporter every now and then. Granted, reporters need to be better prepared, and judges should take the time to educate those who are willing to learn.

Make no mistake, however, the press -- a largely private enterprise -- exists in part to hold government accountable to the public for its actions, and judges are part of government. At the same time, judges have upheld First Amendment rights for the press, realizing that democracy requires an informed electorate. We, the reporters, need them as much as they need us.

The chasm between judges and journalists, therefore, will not and should not disappear, but perhaps with some better communication, a little footbridge will span the gap every now and then.

Juliet A. Terry is a staff reporter for The State Journal who covers government and legal affairs.