I'm no Twain. But I unapologetically exhibited some discriminating irreverence after I was invited by Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Paul Anderson to sit in on a session this week with a visiting delegation of jurists from Kyrgyzstan.

First off, I know as much about the former Soviet bloc as I know why it is we've gone socialist for the wealthy and bailed out Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.

Anderson is the chief host for the quartet of judges from a democratic republic formed 17 years ago, one that has been called an "island of democracy" in Central Asia.

They're here to study our court system and our rule of law. It is part of that nation's stated effort toward judicial reform in a place that had been under tight Soviet control and influence for seven decades. They are attending hearings here and pressing the flesh with various muckety-mucks before departing for home this weekend.

Their fact-finding mission is certainly laudable. The jurists — Ermek Erkovich Sadykov, judge of the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan; Rakhimzhan Askarovich Askarov, chief judge of the Issik-Kul Rayon Court; Sagynbek Rysbekovich Tashtanbekov, chief judge of the Issik-Ata District Court; and Elmira Turdakunovna Baitikova, judge of the Interdistrict Court in Bishkek, the nation's capital — warrant a Minnesota welcome and shout-out.

As Anderson aptly described it during a session I attended as his guest Monday afternoon at the Minnesota Judicial Center, "This is a global community now, and we need to understand how we deal with each other."

The 90-minute session was essentially a primer on the role and function of the U.S. news media, particularly covering the judiciary.

ROLE OF JOURNALISTS

The group heard from Secretary of State Mark Ritchie; Elizabeth Stawicki, who covers legal affairs for Minnesota Public Radio; Dane Smith, a former Star Tribune political writer; and Mark Anfinson, an attorney and media law specialist.

Ritchie informed the jurists that in his view, "the major activity of the press is in informing and educating the public, not simply being a watchdog on the government."

He believes that role is diminishing as the media become more consolidated and more dependent on satisfying shareholders than creating an "informed and educated" public.

Stawicki talked about the challenges and public benefits of covering the judiciary.

Smith, now president of Growth & Justice, a nonpartisan economic advocacy group, agreed with Ritchie that the news media "should be less watchdog and more explainer and interpreter."

"What happens in the news media is that reporters get an attitude that their worth is validated by bringing down elected officials,'' Smith added. We call it 'gotcha' journalism, an effort to get somebody removed from office in disgrace. That mindset is wrong, it's damaging, and it's not good."

Anfinson said his role as a media lawyer was to "make real and make effective what our American Constitution promises or tells us about the news media."

"We are the check on the government. We were set up by the architects of the Constitution to hold government accountable,'' he told the group.

Sadykov, the highest-ranking member of the judiciary delegation and one who deals exclusively with commercial and economic litigation, was asked if he and the others had any questions for the panel.

"The reason why we have no questions is because this is the first time we are meeting with media representatives," Sadykov said. "We do not engage in open discussions with reporters in my country because all they do is criticize. Their role is to criticize us — our role is to do what we do."

Sadykov added it was his view that journalists tended to side "with the losing party."

'YOU DO NOT CONTROL THEIR QUESTIONS'

Then Anderson made the mistake of introducing me and asking whether I would like to say something.

Oh yeah. I told them about Thomas Jefferson's assertion that if he had a choice between a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, he would choose the latter.

I told them I agreed with Smith's views that journalists tend to demonstrate greater respect for the judiciary than the legislative or executive branch of American government because it is looked upon as more independent and nonpartisan.

Then I gave them a little taste of what Twain meant.

I pulled out a report released this year by the International Crisis Group, a global think tank. The report found that although Kyrgyzstan took some impressive steps toward judicial reform more than a decade ago, it is still plagued and undermined by the Soviet-era legacy of corruption as well as political control.

The report explained that in the Soviet system, the judiciary "was completely subordinate to the political regime and was also largely subservient to the prosecutor's office and the law enforcement agencies."

I had another report put out by the Freedom House about eroding press freedoms in the country. But I held that one back. I asked the judges to respond.

"I don't know what Soviet past and what Soviet legacy they are talking about," Sadykov said. "We have a new constitution in place."

Askarov chimed in.

"My colleague has thoroughly answered your questions," he told me. "I am very surprised to hear this information from the report, about this Soviet legacy. I wonder if it's from one of the offended journalists that wanted to discredit the Kyrgyzstan judicial system."

"This is one of the risks when you invite the press in," Anderson informed the jurists. "You do not control their questions, and that's the way it is here ... that's what happens in the United States."

But it was Twin Cities attorney Robert Bayer who was far more eloquent than I in getting at the meat of my point.

Bayer, who speaks fluent Russian and is hosting the visiting delegation, is an expert on Soviet law and spent five years working on legal reforms in Ukraine.

"A free press and an independent judiciary are interdependent," Bayer told the session attendees. "To remain free, the press needs an independent judiciary that can say 'no' to executive and legislative encroachments.

"The judiciary maintains its independence when a free press reports on attempts to undermine that independence — those reports are necessary to galvanize public support, which is, in the final analysis, the only real guarantor of judicial independence," he said.

That may be the best lesson the visiting jurists will take back with them, one we should also keep in mind.

Rubén Rosario can be reached at rrosario@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5454.