Here's the stock answer being mailed out by the NYT:
Hugh Hewitt
Dear Reader,
Thanks for writing to us.
While the public editor does not usually get involved in pre-publication
matters, Bill Keller, the executive editor of the paper, told us that he
would not stand for any gratuitous reporting about the Roberts's children.
He said that as an adoptive parent he is particularly sensitive about this
issue.
In addition, a senior editor at the paper wrote, "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."
Sincerely,
Joe Plambeck
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times
What is "gratuitous" as opposed to "appropriate reporting" on a nominee's children. Who were the "initial inquiries" made to and for what purpose? What does with "great care" mean, and how did that "sensitivity" end up on Drdge.
Looks like some staff got ahead of Keller and way ahead of public opinion, and the cover up is under way. But there's a lot of admission in the response --admission that the paper did indeed think it appropriate to dig into the adoption, and all the scurrying in the world won't obscure that. |
