« Our Servicemen Are Crazy, Dammit | Main | War On Poverty, Racism Turning To Hopeless Quagmire? »
August 05, 2005
NY TimesWatch®: We Never Promised Impartiality
If it had nothing better to do, the half-vast editorial staff could sit on the sidelines and watch the Times twist itself into rhetorical pretzels all day.
We are given to believe the Times is striving to regain its lost integrity...
By August 15th, no less. Hey, it could happen. And Ron Jeremy could wake up tomorrow morning and discover that he had spontaneously recovered his virginity, too.
Isn't it time the blogosphere gave the Times a break? Where's the love? That's right: why not give the Grey Lady a little time to get her act together? Oddly, the HVES has decided to come to the defense of poor Pinch Sulzberger and his flexible urban viewpoint.
After surfing the Net this morning, we've just about had it with all the snark coming from the Reich-wing of the b-sphere. It's time to Stop the Hate. We've had it with snivelling ankle-biters like Michelle Malkin, John Hinderaker, Hugh Hewitt et al, constantly lobbing their digital spitballs at the Grey Lady. I'd like to know where in her vast code of ethics she ever promises to be impartial?
Now we suppose one could argue that a major national newspaper ought to be reporting the news fairly, without bias, and without inserting any particular political agenda into straight news reporting. We agree that sort of thing ought to be limited to the Op-Ed pages. And it is true that the management of the Times does keep claiming that they aren't biased.
The HVES grudgingly admits that combing through thousands of files in the Reagan library to uncover this evidence of shocking malfeasance does call the Times' objectivity into some question:
...while a member of the White House Counsel office, and still in his 20’s, Roberts misspelled the word ’Havana.’ And not once, but three times! He spelled it ’Havanna’ in each case, and if the Times had not looked through thousands of files in the Reagan Presidential Library, Roberts might have gotten away with it."Even worse: when writing about the rights of Cuban refugees from the Mariel boatlift of 1980, he misspelled Marielitos. The poor fool actually wrote ’Marielitoes,’ and what’s more, notes the Times, he did so ’repeatedly.’
What's more, it seems a bit strange that after passionately defending privacy rights for terrorism suspects...
“The Patriot Act already gives government too much power to spy on ordinary Americans, but things could get far worse. Congress is considering adding a broad new investigative power, known as the administrative subpoena, that would allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation to gain access to anyone's financial, medical, employment and even library records without approval from a judge and even without the target knowing about it. Members of Congress should block this disturbing provision from becoming law."
...the Times feels absolutely no compunction about prying into the adoption records of defenseless children:
As is often the case, the Drudge Report is wrong, overwrought and a gross misrepresentation of what has happened. Like all major news organizations, we report extensively on the life and career of any nominee or candidate for high public office. Most of the inquiries we make do not report in published articles at all; we would simply be remiss if we did not ask the questions.In the case of Judge Roberts's family, our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue. We did not order up an investigation of the adoptions. We have not pursued the issue after the initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions.
Translation: Times reporters did investigate the adoption of the Roberts children, but failed to dig up any dirt, so they did not go to publication. What a shame.
One wonders: did the Times also look for psychiatric records to see if Mr. and Mrs. Roberts had ever been in marriage counseling?
Surely that, too is relevant to Judge Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court? Or does the Times recognize any fundamental right to privacy, other than that pertaining to abortion?
The NY Times Public Editor would no doubt be most interested in your feedback on this matter.
Posted by Cassandra at August 5, 2005 05:37 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/871
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NY TimesWatch®: We Never Promised Impartiality:
» Denizen Linkfest. from Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..
Good stuff from the morning mail and the Denizens! For you Calvin fans who are *not* Fonda Jane... Hat tip to Morning Sun. At the Brother's Judd, a little reading of note - it is, afer all, All About Oil,... [Read More]
Tracked on August 5, 2005 08:38 AM
Comments
They adopted? More power to them. I like him more and more. That means they have already been vetted to a fare-thee-well so this is a piece of cake.
Posted by: Cricket at August 5, 2005 07:52 AM
Pretty shameful.
Posted by: spd rdr at August 5, 2005 08:29 AM
Next thing you know, they'll find out that Roberts' once swam with dolphins (eek! the enviromental damage!) and is known to masticate in public (chew on that one).
Sheesh.
Maybe he is even...wait for it... a philatelist!
And the right to privacy is protected!!!
!!!!! okay, used up all my exclamation points today.
Posted by: David at August 5, 2005 08:55 AM
Damn girl! Ron Jeremy? You got the porn theme running all week long don'cha!
Posted by: KJ at August 5, 2005 09:39 AM
You know, this is embarrassing (or maybe it isn't - I don't know) I had to Google "Ron" and "porn" because I had no idea what his name was.
I sat there for 3-5 minutes and could not think of a single porn star's name. So I used Google. All I could remember was "Ron", thanks to you guys.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 5, 2005 09:56 AM
My little slice of pop cultural literacy.
I try to keep it real.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 5, 2005 09:57 AM
And NO - I did *not* click on the link.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 5, 2005 09:58 AM
Do you click and tell???
(still many question marks around for use today)
Posted by: David at August 5, 2005 10:19 AM
Hopefully for you Cassandra your hubby won't check the web browser history and find out you're looking up Ron Jeremy!
Posted by: Frodo at August 5, 2005 11:33 AM
He knows me well enough to know I haven't the slightest interest in that sort of thing, Frodo :)
And I leave my computer on and open - he can check whatever he wants. If I ever do anything I'm worried about him misinterpreting (and I have, once or twice) I tell him about it as soon as he gets home. I'd rather he hear it from me, first.
Anybody that knows me at all knows that I really have no time for dissembling or hiding things. All anybody has to do is ask me, and I'll usually tell them, or at worst, tell them it's none of their business if that's how I genuine feel.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 5, 2005 11:40 AM
I want to know (and sent an e-nail to the Public Editor last night to that effect) what prompted the paper to make any sort of inquiry into the adoption. Did they have a specific tip that there might be something worth investigating or were they merely on a "fishing expedition" in the hopes of finding something newsworthy?
Speaking of...is it not newsworthy in itself that Roberts has adopted two children and, as best we can tell, appears to be pro-life personally? How often do we hear the pro-abortion folks saying that if pro-life people want to put their money where their mouths are, they'd adopt some of these "unwanted children"? It seems that Roberts has done exactly that, doesn't it?
Posted by: Jimmie at August 5, 2005 12:24 PM
Jimmie,
Don't confuse us with reality, please. It's all about the penumbras.
Posted by: NY Times at August 5, 2005 12:34 PM
I'm more than happy to defend my substantive record, but I am toast if spelling is a requirement for SCOTUS.
Posted by: KJ at August 5, 2005 12:59 PM
This is nothing other than a fishing expedition, which amounts to a feeble, pathetic, and DESPERATE attempt to, "dig up dirt," on Roberts. There is no other reason to delve into confidential adoption records. If Roberts was a Dem, the NYT would be screaming about his--and his adopted children's--"right to privacy," not digging for dirt.
Posted by: JannyMae at August 5, 2005 02:16 PM
What I can't imagine is the double standard.
Privacy has to be protected or not. Period.
When Clinton was being investigated and for
far worse stuff (proven infidelity, for example, but I digress)that was proven, the Left hollered 'Foul' and 'his past doesn't matter, nor does it matter if he continues to do so' but what are they so afraid of? A terrorist has more rights to privacy than
DP Roberts.
And spare me the meme about public leaders. Isn't this a nation of 'equal and fair treatment?' If Justice Roberts has to be examined with a probe and a microscope, I say every liberal leaning justice needs the same from the right in the press.
But since we know that won't happen, once again we turn to the blogosphere to keep it balanced.
Free speech rocks.
Posted by: Cricket at August 6, 2005 09:33 AM
Don't you just love the dual standard? Ginsburg wasn't looked at this closely (well, only her proctologist knows for sure, but I digress).
Posted by: Cricket at August 8, 2005 06:45 PM