I don't think that the article simplified the issue too much, and I think that less biased articles tend to zoom out too much. For me the important part of the article is that Justice Thomas in particular kept repeatedly asking whether the prosecutors had been interviewed and Clement kept giving the same answer, that the prosecutors had been interviewed twice. Theoretically a less biased and "divisive" article could get the same detail across, but I don't expect "view from nowhere" journalism to give sufficient focus to the unusual pattern of questioning from one Supreme Court justice.

For example, here the only excerpt about Justice Thomas from an AP News article [1]:

> Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas seemed most inclined to uphold the conviction and death sentence.

Here's an excerpt from a writer for SCOTUSblog [2][3] about Justice Thomas's asking whether the prosecutors had a chance to give their accounts:

> And Thomas expressed broader concerns that the prosecutors originally involved in Glossip’s case believe that they have been “frozen out” of the process, without being provided an “opportunity to give detailed accounts of what those notes meant and what they did during the trial.” “It seems,” he added, “as though their reputations are being impugned.”

> Clement pointed to the two independent investigations, conducted by Duncan and the law firm Reed Smith. However, noting the “pretty significant factual questions” remaining in the dispute, Jackson wondered aloud whether an evidentiary hearing might be an appropriate next step in the case – to determine, for example, what prosecutors knew and what their notes meant.

You wouldn't get any impression that Thomas kept asking the same question over and over. I would've had little reason to post an article about the case if Thomas had called for an evidentiary hearing half as often as he had commented about the prosecutors' reputations.

For comparison, here's an excerpt from the featured article:

> Yet during Wednesday’s arguments, Thomas sought to recast Smothermon and Ackley as innocent victims of a smear campaign. He immediately asked Seth Waxman, Glossip’s lawyer: “Did you at any point get a statement from either one of the prosecutors?” Waxman told him that he did, in fact, get a sworn statement from Ackley, and that Smothermon was interviewed by an independent counsel appointed by Drummond. So yes: Both prosecutors provided statements. Yet Thomas persisted as if they hadn’t. “It would seem that because not only their reputations are being impugned, but they are central to this case—it would seem that an interview of these two prosecutors would be central.” Waxman protested that, again, both prosecutors were given an opportunity to tell their side of the story. And again, Thomas refused to accept it: “They suggest,” the justice said, “that they were not sought out and given an opportunity to give detailed accounts of what those notes meant.”

> In truth, Smothermon and Ackley have had ample opportunity to say their piece. Oklahoma Attorney General Drummond commissioned a thorough probe that included interviews with both prosecutors. Yet when Paul Clement—who represents Drummond—continued defending Glossip, Thomas made the same baseless accusation. “Shouldn’t these two prosecutors—it seems as though their reputations are being impugned,” Thomas told Clement, “and according to them, they did not receive an opportunity to explain in depth.” Clement responded that “that’s hard to square with the record here.” He pointed out that, on top of Drummond’s probe, the Oklahoma Legislature commissioned its own probe of the case, during which Smothermon and Ackley were interviewed.

Biased? Yes. But the quotes together with the background information about the two probes highlight an interaction that would be more difficult to grasp if you read just the oral arguments or even multiple less biased articles summarizing all of the major arguments in the case. You can ctrl-F for "hearing" in the transcript of the oral arguments [4][5] and notice that Justice Thomas never explicitly asks for an evidentiary hearing even though Clement and Justice Jackson keep talking about whether one would be necessary. In the best light, Justice Thomas had trouble communicating what he thought should happen to resolve his concerns about needing additional accounts from the prosecutors. You wouldn't get that impression from unbiased news articles, and from reading the oral arguments you would miss the full context that the "two independent investigations" that Clement mentions were done by the Oklahoma Attorney General and the Oklahoma Legislature in particular rather than non-governmental organizations or more local government bodies (whether legislative, executive, or judicial).

[1] https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-oklahoma-execution-...

[2] https://amylhowe.com/2024/10/09/no-clear-decision-as-justice...

[3] https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/10/no-clear-decision-as-just...

[4] https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2024/22-74...

[5] https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr...