The media, for good or ill, has a great influence on what is heard. So if judges could learn what journalists as a class think about judicial reticence, it might change the way the judges approach the question of extra-judicial speech. But they do approach any debate about the courts with that traditional expectation of openness. There are various reasons for this expectation, to do with history, self-interest and the public interest. But that expectation has been reinforced by factors general to society and specific to the judiciary.
Institutions are now subject to unprecedented scrutiny and criticism.
This is often presented as a challenge to legitimacy, a challenge that demands a response. Fairly or not, silence may be interpreted as evidence of illegitimacy in an institution. Some categories of this criticism are clearly relevant to the judiciary. This is the reformist ethos of efficiency, competition, and accountability. It tends to be hostile to regulation, restraint and reticence.